User talk:Czar/2017 Jan–Apr

This page is a selective, manual archive of my talk page. I saved non-notifications that someone may want to access in the future. To find something I haven't archived, try an external search.

Pantsuit Nation

Hello, I noticed you undid my merge between Pantsuit Nation and Pantsuit. As per WP:MERGE and WP:BOLD I, believing the merge would be uncontroversial, decided to do it without marking it on the talk page. Clearly, there is a lack of consensus but I don't think the edits I made were tantamount to "unexplained blanking" as you put it in your edit summary as I thought I provided a reasonable explanation. In hindsight, the merge may have been hasty - would you suggest better linking the Pantsuit article to the Pantsuit Nation article or would you be open to the discussion of a merge? Thank you and Happy New Year! - DrStrauss talk 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DrStrauss, the edit summary only indicated that the content was merged but not why. I don't think there is any question that enough sources exist on this subject to meet WP's standards of significant coverage. Feel free to expand in either article, but I think it's likely that both have enough content and sourcing to stand on their own. Happy New Year to you too! czar 01:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi - good idea - they do seem well-sourced but I'll look for any bits needing expansion. Best -DrStrauss talk 01:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Tory Lane

Hi!

Can you restore the Tory Lane page? She is now inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame [1] and thus qualifies per WP:PORNBIO. Holanthony (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Holanthony, done czar 23:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please reverse this action. There's an established consensus that a technical PORNBIO pass, even for belonging to an industry hall of fame (See, eg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sascha (actor)), is not enough to outweigh failure to satisfy GNG requirements. The OP here can either attempt to write a new, adequately sourced BLP or bring the matter to DRV for review, but reinstatement on request would not be appropriate. Because this was an AFD deletion, the article is ineligible for WP:REFUND, and endrunning the established processes should not be encouraged. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, that the secondary notability guidelines do not trump the GNG is not lost on me, but it's been two years and the induction is sufficiently significant to warrant revisiting the deletion discussion. Reinstatement on revelation of new findings is fine, but it's also fine to contest it. @Holanthony, do you have additional sources to assert significant coverage for this subject, perhaps from the last two years in particular? Otherwise it looks like this will go right back whence it came. Alternatively, it can be incubated in draftspace. czar 23:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll let things shake out briefly, but I do want to note that, during the two years since the original deletion, community consensus on PORNBIO has been to handle BLPs more restrictively than in the past. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Ok, I've added some more content now. Holanthony (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Holanthony, thanks—I cleaned it up a bit. Removed the whole plane incident as undue weight, since it was only mentioned in that local news source and the rest was original research. This isn't quite my area of expertise so I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Industry/trade sources for source suggestions and I think you could mine XBiz and AVN for more notable source material—major appearances, landmark scenes, etc.—but it's a lot of material to sort through. If you find a handful more sources, I think you'll be in the clear. I saw several references to her career as a "veteran", so she is certainly established—HB is just looking for whether the source material exists to do justice to that career. You can also expand from the Sin City and Hall of Fame sources. czar 01:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Holanthony is BLP topic banned and won't be pursuing this article further, but for closure, others have pitched in and the article's sourcing looks sufficient to stay in mainspace. No prejudice against another deletion discussion, though I personally don't think it's warranted (redirection to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame is a suitable alternative). Either way, I believe this is where my involvement ends czar 05:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Pitch Perfect 3

Please move Draft:Pitch Perfect 3 → Pitch Perfect 3 — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 14:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

TeamWarfare League AfD

CZAR, can I receive a copy of this page ("TeamWarfare League")? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FTeamWarfare_League_(2nd_nomination). This organization and company are active again, and the old page would be useful in creating a new one with the correct sources. RedBeardOrion (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @RedBeardOrion, what kind of new sources do you have? The organization simply existing is not enough for our notability guidelines and it wouldn't be appropriate to recreate the article without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I can still provide a copy if you're planning to export it elsewhere, though. czar 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand. It would still be useful to us if we could receive a copy to export to our own site and then when the required sources exist re-create an entry for the organization on WP. RedBeardOrion (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@RedBeardOrion, by your organization do you mean that you are affiliated with TWL? I've emailed a copy of the page. If you need more information on the author attribution, just let me know czar 05:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Peter Rabbit (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Peter Rabbit (film) → Peter Rabbit (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch

Why are you redirecting games that are going to be released in two months and are currently on display for people to play (with more information coming tomorrow?) SNS (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Because there is literally nothing published about them besides their announce trailer and (sometimes) a release date. When topics don't have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), we redirect them to a parent article. czar 05:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Titanfall Frontline screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Titanfall Frontline screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Restored image to where it was removed from (without explanation). -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I, Tonya

Hi Czar -- can you do a histmerge of I, Tonya and Draft:I, Tonya? Thanks. NathanielTheBold (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, done czar 06:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Page SMAUG

What's the deal here? Pages are usually tagged first before labeled as "low quality". The whole purpose of a collaborative encyclopedia is for articles to be built up, not thrown out. This article is part of notable historical information of Internet history. --Thoric (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has been redirected since May. My edit summary explained that the article lacks significant coverage: we require articles to have some overabundance of coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant a separate article. As it stands, anything that is sourced on SMAUG can be covered in its parent article, but Wikipedia is not the place to host content that can only be sourced to primary/affiliated sources. Feel free to export the content to another wiki. czar 18:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Realms of Despair the game (MUD) and the SMAUG code base are two distinct entities. One is a specific game running a closed-source variant with closed-source game content since 1993, and the other is a pre-packaged release of the source code with a small pre-packaged set of starting/example game content for the express purpose of building your own game with your own game content. The game and the code base are notable within the context of the history of Internet gaming. They have both been referenced by primary as well as secondary sources. I'm not sure what you are referring to as "affiliated sources". According to Wikipedia:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. This article is 12 years old. Why delete it now? Why not a request for citation of additional sources? Why not a deletion review? Why are looking for articles to delete in the first place? --Thoric (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

One has reliable, secondary sources and the other doesn't. If you can rectify that, go for it—the content was not "deleted". The sources need to be independent of the topic (not affiliated), meaning that the page needs to cite publications with reputations for fact-checking, not Usenet, a guy's blog, faqs.org, smaug.org (which calls itself a Realms of Despair website, for what it's worth), and a passing mention on Raph Koster's website. If you're interested in why Wikipedia has sourcing requirements, read the links from my previous post. There should be no issues with covering the topic of "SMAUG" within the related "Realms of Despair" topic. "Notability is not temporary" means that if you were to find sources from reliable 90s publications, that those publications would be sufficient (that they don't become less noteworthy over time). But whether those publications exist—as there is no evidence that they do—is the responsibility of the article's editors. czar 20:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a major issue with moving the SMAUG content to a subsection of Realms of Despair, and really if you were motivated to change the page to a redirect, then why not move the content as part of that change? I am familiar with sourcing requirements, and I know that they primarily exist to keep Wikipedia free from nonsense, misinformation and spam. I would not refer to being included on Raph Koster's "Online World Timeline" to be a "passing mention". Inclusion on that page represents being part of the "timeline of significant events for the development of virtual worlds". I'm not sure if you are familiar with Raph Koster, but he was the lead designer of Ultima Online, creative director of Star Wars Galaxies, chief creative officer of EverQuest II, as well as a number of other online games. If Raph Koster believes the release of the SMAUG MUD code base to be a "significant event for the development of virtual worlds", how is that not notable? --Thoric (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There was nothing sourced to merge, Thoric. No, a passing mention—a single line—in a Raph Koster timeline is not notability. (Think about it: Why would a single mention from Koster mean that we have the sourcing to write a full article on the topic?) Might be caught on "notability", which can be a misleading term, because we're not in the business of deciding whether something is "important" writ large but whether we can write an article on the subject without stooping to primary sources. (As a tertiary source, our job is to report the secondary sources and not to conduct original research.) Here's how I put it: Topics only warrant separate Wikipedia articles when a overabundance of reliable, secondary sources cover the topic in compleat, such that we could do justice to the whole topic without resorting to primary or unreliable sources. If reliable sources cannot do the topic justice, we instead cover the topic in a parent article or not at all. Hope that answers your questions, and if not, WP:42 covers this in greater depth. czar 21:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain that "reliable sources" for virtual online worlds are required to be peer reviewed journals and publications. Sometimes Wikipedia guidelines make more sense for certain cases than others. Also primary sources are allowable for some content if it is the authoritative source for technical information (as opposed to POV, or something that may be disputed). I know Google numbers are not a usable source, but doing a google search for smaug mud returns about 274,000 results. A secondary source (not affiliated with Realms of Despair or SMAUG) website discusses Smaug Server which has a Smaug forum with over 10 million views. DMOZ determined it notable enough to have its own category MUDs/Development/Codebases/DikuMUD/Merc/SMAUG/. I realize these are not an "overabundance of reliable, secondary sources", but is that a firm guideline for all articles? --Thoric (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the general notability guideline. No, they don't need to be peer reviewed journals, but they need to be reliable publications (not fan blogs, websites associated with the fan community or developer, etc.) It can be the most popular game in the world, but if no reliable source writes about it, we have nothing on which to base our citations. czar 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

FFD relists

Hi there, I noticed you've done a number of relists at FFD lately. Just wanted to point out the admin instructions for FFD, particularly that at FFD, a nomination to delete with no subsequent contributions results in a delete, not a relist. This helps keep the backlog under control as FFDs do not usually receive a lot of participation, so would otherwise just get relisted over and over. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Stifle, I'm aware of the procedure. I have primarily been closing discussions that have gone unanswered for months, usually because they require specific expertise. I'll note that relisting is at the closer's discretion and that the discussions have been better served by getting their requested answers (albeit late). Closing a discussion before that time can be more harmful than ignoring it altogether. czar 09:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone does not fall under WW:COMMONNAME

I see that you changed the name of Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone to Yggdra Union. This is an incorrect practice for you to do with video games. The video game is called, licensed and distributed as a product called Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone. Unless said distributor released a version simply titled Yggdra Union, we should present the title of the product in its full name, for example, Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue. That's a long name that could easily be abbreviated as Kingdom Hearts 2.8, however, that would be an incorrect representation of the product's name. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

We follow the name used most often in reliable, secondary sources. Considering the subtitle and the article title naming criteria, we use the name most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify). As for the Kingdom Hearts example, do sources actually call it "Kingdom Hearts 2.8"? Because sources certainly call the game in question "Yggdra Union". czar 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, many sources call Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue Kingdom Hearts 2.8,
http://www.videogamesrepublic.com/what-to-expect-from-the-kingdom-hearts-2-8-release-date/10272
http://www.universityherald.com/articles/61222/20170119/kingdom-hearts-hd-2-8-leads-top-selling-list-follows.htm
https://mic.com/articles/164583/kingdom-hearts-2-8-release-date-when-to-get-the-new-collection-and-what-it-comes-with#.oRz32fqC1
However, that's besides the point. Video games are titled in a way that the developers and publishers have agreed upon. That is why they do not fall under WW:COMMONNAME. Unlike names of people, the product's patent, copyright and assets are registered under the full name. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The point is that we use what reliable, secondary sources use, whether it's a full, "official" name or, more likely, a shorter version. WP's rules on article titles is a policy that reflects a broad consensus—you can argue that our sources more commonly use the full name than the unsubtitled name, but there really is no case to argue that the policy doesn't apply to (or "fall under") this article. You can use the video game reliable sources custom Google search to find what vetted video game sources call a game. czar 17:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand. But even certain secondary sources have called Yggdra Union by it's full name so that's all the more reason to maintain the video game's full name for the article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's not that the sources used the full name to identify the topic—because you'll note that we also identify the full name at the beginning of the article—but that they use the shorter name to refer to the game and so do we. Article titles are a combination of convenience and identification (see what I said about recognizable/natural/precise/concise above—the shorter name performs the same function without the extra characters). czar 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Burning Rangers FAC

Do you have a moment to take a look at the Burning Rangers FAC? You're one of the best prose writers among the video game editors, and I would like a second opinion. I'm considering an oppose, mostly on prose grounds. I've also seen a couple of examples of sources not quite corresponding exactly to what the article says -- I don't mean deliberate misrepresentation of the source, just a poorly enough worded sentence in the article that it doesn't really mean what is intended. For the reception section, I mentioned User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections, which you provided helpful comments on, but I don't think the changes made really reflect what I was hoping to see. If you have time I'd really appreciate your input there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

May I ask why you have removed the category History of video games from the page above? Too many? To me it seems just the kind of article where this category would fit perfectly. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Oxygene7-13, it's not a defining trait of the book. The book is about video games, and perhaps their history, by extension, but the book itself is not the history of video games—that would be eras, events, overviews of the history. When the "books about video games" subcat expands, there will eventually be a cat for "history books about video games". (Unrelated, templates are forbidden in signatures in enwp.) czar 10:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I just had about seven categories removed from the Peter Griffin page cause of overkill, so I understand. It is just that to my opinion this category was not that farfetched... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 19:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Side note: @Oxygene7-13: You need to make sure to WP:Subst your signature per WP:SIG#NT. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is that? Is it too "server-heavy"? Can I produce a signature that still looks the same but meet the standards? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 08:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Oxygene7-13: Please review the section at WP:SIG#NT; if you have questions about some specific point therein, let me know, since it does not appear that you took a look. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Tomb Raider (2018 film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Tomb Raider (2018 film) → Tomb Raider (2018 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 10:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Pac-Man

Since posting the AfD, I realized that while it's an awful article, suggesting an outright delete was probably rather harsh. And after looking at your vote, a redirect seems like a better idea. Is it kosher for me to edit the entry and suggest a redirect at this point? Thanks. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beemer69, yep! Since there are no other arguments for deletion, it can be withdrawn (I'll handle this for you) and boldly redirected. If anyone objects, it would go to a talk page (but not a deletion) discussion czar 23:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: The article has reappeared once again after I redirected it. Argh. Dumb question: should I take this to an RfD (which I didn't know existed till just now, unfortunately) discussion? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beemer69: I re-redirected it. We'll see if the redirect sticks. --Izno (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And it didn't stick. Czar, I don't think a redirect is going to hold short of a full week's worth of AFD, considering the user reverting has done so with 2 separate users, and there exists a third who !voted for redirection.... --Izno (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of Pac-Man video games#Proposed merge with Pac-Man Arrangement czar 18:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

VGA Planets

Hi Czar,

I disagree with your redirection at VGA Planets. The topic is clearly notable, so let's rather improve the article. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme, you can start by adding reliable, secondary sources. And mind that I've already looked through the Google Books listings—there isn't more than a paragraph of solid info in there, all of which fits in the parent listing. There might be more if you do more digging, but that's on you to prove czar 11:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Converting the article into a redirect without discussion was a bit rash. Let's see how we can improve the article. --Hjaekel (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Look at its condition and how long it sat as a redirect: not rash by any means. Wikipedia:Be bold. As for what the article needs, it has already been explicated in multiple venues. Have at it. czar 02:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Sportatorium Interior 1982.jpg

Hi Czar. Thank you for your help in sorting this out. Do you think it would be a good idea for the file's uploader to state on her Commons' userpage that she is the photographer? Maybe even send in an email to OTRS? She didn't use her own name for her username so the connection might not be as clear as if she did. Even if she did use her name, however, quite often you find people claiming to be someone they aren't when it comes to Commons uploads. I'm not assuming bad faith, but what happens on Commons does not always reflect what happens or is discussed on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Sportatorium Interior 1982.jpg was deleted per uploader request. That's a bit strange since it would've resolved the non-free issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

(ffd thread) @Marchjuly, very strange... I started a follow-up thread at commons:User talk:Ankry#File:Sportatorium Interior 1982.jpg (courtesy ping @Jhw57). For the original question, yes, it's never bad to encourage the uploader to send OTRS permission from an original address if the rights might be challenged, but I wouldn't harass over that point—it's believable enough as a copyright claim. But we'll see what happened with this upload. czar 02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, I posted something on Jhw57's user talk asking if they knew what might have happened. Also, the photo in question does appear online, but it's not released under a Commons compatible free license. So, OTRS may be required regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Amusement Park (film) and Ferdinand (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Amusement Park (film) → Amusement Park (film) and Draft:Ferdinand (film) → Ferdinand (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, are these in production (WP:NFF)? I know it's harder to prove for animations but still there should be some sign that animation has started, no? czar 18:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

They are in-production, I'm sure of it. Animated films are usually in-production when their release dates are just a year or two years ahead. Don't worry, just move these and it's on me. :-p Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There is another stone in my head, teasing actually. Draft:The Lamb (2017 film) was supposed to be moved in the articlespace but someone created it with a new title, The Star (2017 film). Would you mind merging them? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ all done czar 18:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania 3

Hello! Please move Draft:Hotel Transylvania 3 → Hotel Transylvania 3 — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian spambot

FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=145.255.2.81 . Shearonink (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jalebi (video game)

Hi Czar

Please find link to a news article about "Jalebi (video game)" in Hindi language. I will also try to search and find more. Thanks. http://www.prnewswire.co.in/news-releases/hi-590427041.html Bilingual2000 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bilingual2000, this is a promotional press release. If you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalebi (video game), we're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. (?) czar 07:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (film)

Hello! Another thing to merge Draft:Can You Ever Forgive Me? (film) → Can You Ever Forgive Me? (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 11:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Czar, hope you're doing fine... I had a quick query. Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owain Astles as a delete after commenting in it? I agree with deleting the article, but in general, might not have expected an admin to comment and then to close the same Afd. It might be construed as taking an admin action while being involved So am curious why you did this? And would you perhaps consider reversing your close and let another admin close the Afd? Thanks. Lourdes 09:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lourdes, those comments coincided with the closure—they're extended closure rationale/thoughts but not written in summary of the discussion, hence their location at the bottom. Don't see how it could reasonably be construed as participation, nevertheless "involvement" or ethical conflict in closing that discussion czar 09:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. In the timeline of the Afd, you first commented in one edit, then in the next edit closed it, then added further to the comment. And your comment also was not placed along with your closure statement but was made below, like other editors. At least in my opinion, you made an involved closure of this Afd. Again, I'm not disagreeing with deleting the article. I'm suggesting that your close seems involved, and it might be good form to reverse it. Thanks. Lourdes 10:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes, I just said it was an extended closure rationale and not a separate comment—whether it's done in the same edit is trivial. Is this purely a procedural concern, or do you actually think I showed active bias (which is what "involved" means) in the closure? czar 10:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you showed bias. Your statement made in the Afd before the closure tends towards delete. I am sorry if this is coming out in the wrong perspective. I'm just sharing with you what I feel. Thanks for looking at my concern. Lourdes 10:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverse. Sorry for the trouble. See you around. Lourdes 10:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Lourdes, yes, the closing admin isn't just counting votes but weighing the arguments for consensus and sometimes that requires more than a single word. I've reverted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think this is overly litigious on your part. czar 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• If I may suggest, with due respects to your views... In my experience at Afds, I've never seen an admin comment along with other editors and then close the same Afd; so perhaps that gave me an impression of involved. When you are closing an Afd, perhaps you should ensure that the comments, however in-depth, are placed right where your closing statement is, than with other editors. That may reduce the confusion for editors like me. I reiterate my apologies for the inconvenience but applaud and respect your gracious reply and reversing of the Afd close. Thanks. Lourdes 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It won't be the last time you see it. I still doubt whether this "confusion" was genuine—it's really clear that I had no prior stake in the closure, especially to an experienced editor. More likely, if this was just-to-be-sure, this discussion is more harmful than the closure: a solution in search of a problem, an insincere charge of bias, and a waste of time for all parties. czar 20:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then my due apologies for having given that impression. I leave you hoping you take on board my suggestions. Take care and ciao. Lourdes 01:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

NHL 95 Revisited

If you need to refresh yourself on our previous discussion on this topic (I know I did), here's a link to the now archived exchange. The reason I'm bringing this up again is I just found an article in Next Generation which, in their definition for "Bug", uses that same high scoring bug from NHL '95 as their example. Since this makes two references to the bug in two different magazines, one of them from long after the game's release (by the time of the Next Generation article, the sequel NHL 96 had already been out for several months), I'm beginning to suspect that this particular bug is more than just trivia. Thoughts?--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martin IIIa, it's hard to tell without seeing the sources in context, but I would think it's appropriate to mention the bug in the article if it came up twice. I'd just stick to due weight: if the bug is only mentioned in passing and/or called a prominent example, that's exactly how I'd put it in the article (not going into added specifics of how it works if the sources don't do so as well). czar 17:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Faith Wood-Blagrove

Hello! I think this Draft:Faith Wood-Blagrove should be moved to the articlespace now, as Faith Wood-Blagrove was nominated for a speedy deletion but was declined by an admin, which means the actress can have the article now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, not necessarily—speedy deletions are for cases so meritless that they don't even require discussion. Declining a speedy says that it isn't one of those cases, not that the topic is notable. I'd say the case is really weak based on the current sourcing. Also the page histories would conflict apart from the draft's first few edits... Best bet, I'd wager, is to redirect the article for now, especially if the actress isn't known for any other film. czar 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not notable enough, I know. So a redirect it is. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled The Intouchables remake

Hello! Please do a histmerge of Draft:The Intouchables (upcoming film) into Untitled The Intouchables remake and I'll do the improvements later. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Image attribution....

Yeah those do seem to be in error. Apologies . Not sure how i happened though.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 1#File:PorterGardenTelescope.JPG czar 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hassan Ahmed (actor)

Hello czar! Please take a look at Draft:Hasan Ahmed (actor), which was supposed to move at Hassan Ahmed (actor), but someone created it before it would move. So, now the draft is in discussion to be removed, what do you say? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, not the strongest notability case, but within reason. I'd ask Spartaz, who has been enforcing the AfD discussion. If one is going to go, I imagine it'd sooner be the mainspace page than the draft. If the mainspace version is kept, I can merge the draft in. czar 16:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mary Poppins Returns

Hello! Please move Draft:Mary Poppins Returns → Mary Poppins Returns — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 08:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about some edits to Whiskey Rebellion

I am ready to finish up my GA Review and have decided - given my experience - that it is not a COI for me to deal with the various CN/verification needed templates within the article. I am listing them all here to see if my proposed corrections will pass muster. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You added {{verify citation|date=January 2017}} to Whiskey Rebellion with this edit. The plan to have the whiskey tax pay for the war-incurred debt seems to already be treated in-depth in the Whiskey tax section - if the Howlett/Kentucky Bourbon Experience reference is removed in my opinion that would seem to take care of that "verification needed" issue but wanted to have your thoughts on that before I did so. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have another question about a "cn" template. Would this qualify as a decent reference for the sampling/usage of the WC Fields spoken word piece on The Calico Walls' record? There is an embedded audio file at that URL, can the record itself be used as a reference (perhaps using the "cite av" template).

I have added some references to the article - please take a look & respond here if they take care of your citation concerns. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked into that one unsourced paragraph under "Western grievances", that starts with "The main objection to the whiskey tax..." This paragraph was added in one edit and is out of step with the rest of the article. I think it should be deleted, the subject matter is covered in referenced content elsewhere in the article, but in my opinion doing so would constitute a major edit and, so I cannot remove the content. Let's discuss etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink, all sounds/looks good. I made a few fixes based on the above. Had been waiting on a few books to come in, but might be able to wrap up the GA review without them. I'll take a look. czar 18:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your work on the article. Barbara(WVS) has also been able to step in and she has done some editing as well. There's only really one thing left to be done before I can wrap my Review up and that is that one unsourced paragraph either being removed or getting referenced. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for your fixes to the Harvard refs - they are one of my bugaboos. 18:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Whiskey Rebellion

	Congratulations, it's a...
	..Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you really ...

... intend to redirect Philippines at major beauty pageants to Quadrophenia, a totally unconnected article, based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am The Sea, an article about a song? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W, look at my contribs—I'm reverting a (major) script error czar 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This too, just FYI: National Academy of Construction (USA). Brycehughes (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's one heck of a script error... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Tell me about it User talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js/Archive 1#Major error czar 20:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

vBhavesh Bhatia

Hi, I was this a mistake [2]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234, see above czar 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I Am The Sea

Please can you read and understand WP Capitalisation? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No need for the tone. Alternative capitalizations are fine redirects ({{R from other capitalization}}/{{R from miscapitalization}}) and there was already edit history at I Am the Sea. czar 02:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering capitalization was discussed in the discussion... and you chose to ignore it. Plus another admin had deleted I Am the Sea to make way for the move. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No admin has deleted I Am the Sea to make way for the move and I (correctly) judged consensus. There's nothing wrong with the capitalization or keeping the page history. The only facet ignored here is your tone. If you insist on wasting other's time, you can take the redirect to discussion. Enjoy your crusade. czar 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

Hi Czar. I currently have Resident Evil 5 nominated for FAC (see here) but it's only gotten one reviewer in over a fortnight. I notice you have several video-game related articles at GAN. I was wondering if you'd like to trade reviews? If you're happy to comment on my nomination I'll review one of your nominations. No worries if you're not interested or too busy. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Freikorp, likely won't have time for a while but do check back if the absence of feedback gets dire. I wouldn't worry, personally, until the nomination is getting on a month or so. Some contributors wait to fill in during the latter stages of the nom. (My hunch is that sometimes editors don't contribute when they see that the nom will be a lot of work—basic style things need fixing, sections need rework, etc.—so best to preempt that by making the first read spotless. For example, I can pick out a dozen examples in the dev/marketing sections where sentences are overly specific. Remember that this is an article written for a general audience and though the article might collect specific days or job roles or software versions or this kind of detail over time, it likely is extraneous to the reader who just wants the basic info. That's usually the difference between a standard article and FA "brilliant" prose. Also you'll want to footnote the Japanese name unless it's crucial to understanding the topic.) czar 17:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and for the advice. I'll take another look at those sections. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Page Question

Hi Czar,

A page I was working on editing was deleted by you recently (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Aspect_Enterprise_Solutions) and I was wondering if it's possible for me to start a new page for the company with more external links in order to address the reliable source issue? I have many external links I can use, but I didn't include them in the page. Would it be possible to restore the page so I can add the sources? I'm new to making Wiki edits, so I hope this is the right place to address this issue. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.148.219 (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi 24.188, the issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspect Enterprise Solutions wasn't external links but significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?)—the company should have coverage in newspapers and magazines with reputations for reliability and fact-checking. Again, not quantity of links, but depth of coverage from vetted outlets. If you have links to such coverage that didn't make it into the article, show me and I can offer some guidance. If the page is recreated without adequate sourcing, it will just be deleted again. (By the way, Kurykh handled the deletion and I'm in the log by accident, though happy to help.) czar 17:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Czar,

Thanks for responding. I have many links to verify information as the company is mentioned in the news quite a bit. Here are a few examples:

http://www.itbusinessnet.com/article/Silicon-Review-Names-Aspect-Among-Fastest-Growing-Tech-Companies-4806089 http://risk-management.cioreview.com/vendor/2016/aspect http://gamechangersawards.finance-monthly.com/winners-edition/#32

Is there any way to get the deleted page restored so I could source the information correctly? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.148.219 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

At first blush, those links look like PR pieces, either wholly or mostly retreads of company-submitted material. Do you have anything from mainstream sources? Otherwise, I'm afraid there isn't much hope. czar 06:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Czar,

The first link I included was PR, but the other two are just articles where our CIO and CEO were interviewed. The interviewed pieces are from legitimate online tech magazines (CIO Review & Finance Monthly). Aspect is a real global company with a global presence. Other E/CTRM companies are on Wikipedia with similar reference links, and I assure you we will edit our sources to align with Wikipedia rules. I also can find links like this: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=111709978 to prove we are a real company. Aspect is also mentioned on the Platts website, they are partners: http://www.platts.com/delivery-platforms Do the sources from Platts & Bloomberg help? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.26.159 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi 100.12, a few points here: (1) The global nature of the company doesn't appear to be in question, as the sourcing alone ultimately determines whether we have an article on the topic. We are a tertiary source that summarizes reliable, secondary sources, and if there is a lack of secondary source coverage, there is nothing for us to write without delving into original research (which we don't do). (2) If other E/CTRM company articles are sourced inadequately, they should be removed too. If you tell me which, someone could look into them. (3) If you have an affiliation with the company, that would need to be explicitly disclosed per our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. (4) The Bloomberg and Platts links are both listings—they don't show any significant coverage from a secondary source publication subject to editorial discretion. If it was an article in Bloomberg Businessweek, it would be a different story. czar 17:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Wheel

Hi Czar -- could you do a histmerge of Untitled Woody Allen project and Wonder Wheel? Thanks. NathanielTheBold (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, ✓ done czar 05:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Predator (2018 film)

Hey Czar, can you move draft:The Predator (2018 film) to The Predator (2018 film)? Thanks - Tammydemo 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tammydemo, ✓ done czar 16:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Robin Hood (2018 film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Robin Hood (2018 film) to Robin Hood (2018 film) - Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Czar. You have new messages at Talk:Donkey Kong 64/GA1.
Message added 04:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not sure why the bot didn't notify you before, but I completed the review and put the nomination on hold two days ago. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS, thanks! I'll get to it this weekend. And yeah, the GA bot hasn't graced this page in years—I think it's an issue with parsing my signature, though it's not like it's noncompliant... czar 04:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That should work fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Cloisters, miniatures etc

Thank you for all your help, provision and well, energy. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

FC Dinamo II București

This team is the second team of FC Dinamo București and use the same logo as the mother team, being the same company according with the Romanian Football Federation site, also. FC Dinamo București profile on FRF
FC Dinamo II București profile on FRF. Rhinen

Hi Czar. The relevant discussion for this can be found at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10#FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos. This logo is essentially the same as the one it replaced (File:Dinamo-logo.PNG) with the only difference appearing to be the star at the top in the new version. I'm not sure if that's enough of a difference to change the result of the FFD discussion since basically WP:NFC#UUI17 still seems to apply. I will, however, defer to your judgement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi @Rhinen, the discussion affirmed that the reserve team article should not duplicate the logo of its parent team. Please do not reinsert the logo against the guidelines and consensus. czar 15:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Czar, Ok, no problem. Rhinen

About OmarGosh

Hey man, I saw you deleted my article on OmarGosh because it had been previously deleted. I just want to let you know that I fixed the initial issue of it not having a single relevant source, but this time I actually provided several news articles. I would appreciate if you would help me do all that I can to get this page back. Thank you very much! User: MrProEdits (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)MrProEdits

Hi @MrProEdits, I wasn't involved in the article's deletion but you can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmarGosh (not to be confused with OmarGoshTV). The consensus was that the sourcing was not enough to keep the article. We only keep separate articles for topics that have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) That's usually multiple national sources in substantial depth on the subject (not primary, affiliated, or local sources. If/when the subject receives that kind of coverage, we can revisit the discussion. czar 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donkey Kong 64

The article Donkey Kong 64 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Donkey Kong 64 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:DK64 scans

Here you go: 22-23, 24-25. Looks like there's a bunch of other info in these, including sales figures for the original Donkey Kong Country. Hope these are useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar, check out the bottom-right corner of 25 for DKC. I went to add it to the article, but there's a conflict, if I understand correctly. Next Gen says 3 million copies were sold between 1994 and 1999, but the article's current IGN source says six million were sold that holiday season. Curious czar 21:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This is quite strange; according to The Ultimate History of Video Games, DKC had sold 9 million copies as of 2001—a substantial increase in the two year difference regarding Next Generation's claim. Bearing in mind that it is the second highest-selling game on the SNES, 3 million does seem a bit unlikely as Star Fox had sold 4 million as of 1998. I'm only speculating, but I would take Next Generation's figure with a pinch of salt, perhaps... there's a retrospective on the Donkey Kong series in the 19th issue of OMN, I'll go and have a look soon. JAGUAR  22:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out something in light of your recent edit comment about these lacking any info about the development timeline – see the third sentence in the preview's DK64 section, which starts by telling that at the time of the preview, the game "secretly in development for close to four years", a detail that was directly mentioned in the article's development section but still got removed despite proof for it being in the quoted NG issue. So yeah, while it was a bit of a stretch to trace DK64 development back to 1995 based on this fact alone, I still can't quite wrap my head around why exactly was this detail removed from the article. Electroguv (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

EG, I pinged you for help with this a week ago. I added it back here, but in the future please add a quote if the source is a single sentence in a relatively inaccessible offline source. I also have qualms about sourcing the game's development history to a throwaway line in the corner of a preview... but we'll see if it gets challenged in the FAC review. Thanks for checking back in. czar 16:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the "throwaway" part is quite debatable seeing as Next Generation was a respected publication back in the day, and somewhere in the article it says that the preview info came directly from Rare's HQ. Besides, that quote is the most explicit statement about the DK64 project's timespan I've been able to get my hands on, so it's better than nothing. Electroguv (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed czar 17:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Scratch the dubious preview claim, I think I've found something more reliable to work with. Electroguv (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha, vindicated :) czar 20:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Was Nintendo 64 emulation supposed to be in article space?

Just wondering, as I see it was marked as reviewed (by you? I didn't know we could review our own pages....?) hope it's OK to ask. Mabalu (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mabalu, thanks—it was written as a user draft but apparently not when I saved. As for marking as "reviewed", my understanding is that all Wikipedia:Autopatrolled users automatically mark their own newly created articles as "reviewed", but I've never tested the specifics myself. Thanks again for the heads up czar 17:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

It was great to read that you are now the Smithsonian's Visiting Scholar. They are lucky to have you.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Astroneer

I'm just wondering as to why Astroneer was basically blanked? About 85% of the content is gone. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Alongside the link to my talk page was the edit summary. Was it unclear? The article was brought to deletion discussion twice because of its condition. It was mostly unsourced and otherwise built on primary and unreliable sources. It needs to be rewritten from reliable, secondary sources, such as the ones listed on its talk page. czar 03:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding File:GAZ M20 Pobeda chassis (1946).jpg

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_February_25 Hi, I wonder where do I find a free image of the internal structure of a vehicle that is no longer in production for half a century? You must be kidding. I can understand that one may snap a photo on a retro car show of an exterior of an old car, but making a photo of it frame? Even if someone did it when restoring - or disassembling - their car, it would not look as clear as a professional rendering.

Also, it is counter-intuitive why the article must have more text to "support" as you say an image. Like they say, picture worth a thousand words, it is the whole point of image! The particular image was mentioned, so a reader could understand the reason for the image, and could compare this image with another one, from the Opel.

You say you can picture yourself a unitized body, congrats. But the variations are endless, and this particular variation uses main unibody with bolted front longitudinal beams - this a very specific design, because there are other ways to approach the same goal.

Therefore, I think your deletion of this image was not warranted. Also, the image was likely made in the Soviet times, when no one cared of it being proprietary. In fact, I think it is free, but could not find any indication of that.

I am going to restore the image, because I am of the opinion it is important to trace the roots of this particular car, which was pivotal in the Russian car industry. Mikus (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mikus, exactly—unless the car is not readily shown or all extant versions are rotted out of existence, it's possible to take a freely licensed photo of it. That's the policy. (Works similar for people who are still alive, even if they're famously private—if it's feasibly possible to get a free-use photo (read: they are alive), we do not use non-free photos as a replacement. Similarly, when the photo's subject isn't the topic of the article, there needs to be strong contextual significance to prove that a non-free photo is absolutely necessary for understanding the concept (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). I went out of my way to explain this in closing the discussions. The concept of the unibody is perfectly understandable as written in prose. If there is something so unique about the unibody design that cannot be expressed in prose, we would need to see that reflected both in prose (i.e., attempting to explain that element's importance) and the image's fair use rationale. As of now, there is no sourcing cited that makes that case. If you feel you can make that case, I can restore the image (which one?) and the discussion, but if the explanation cannot meet the policy, surely you should see why restoring the image apropos of nothing would be disruptive. czar 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

About Super Nintendo World

Hello, Czar

First of all, why Super Nintendo World is going to be a theme park rather than a themed section?

And secondly, why did you removed the word "Pokemon" in that article? It is also going to include Pokemon in that new land, right? After all Pokemon is a Nintendo franchise.

Question by Wiki-Ikiw 2 (reply to me please) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Wiki-Ikiw 2, Pokémon isn't mentioned in the source cited. We follow what the sources say. It isn't exactly clear how the Nintendo section will integrate into the park (separate/integrated/a few rides?) It's fine to phrase it as an "area", likely similar to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Universal Studios Japan). czar 21:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Trigger (button)

Dear Czar,

Why did you redirect Trigger (button) to Gamepad? Triggers are just as notable as D-Pads or Thumbsticks. Triggers wouldn't be fitting in the gamepad article. Just because an article doesn't have references yet, doesn't always mean it's fitting to make it a redirect. **Kivitoe (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)**

Hi @Kivitoe, Wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability—I couldn't find sources that discuss the "trigger" as independently notable from the gamepad. Honestly, "d-pad" and possibly "analog stick" have the same situation. They should be covered summary style within the parent article on the gamepad and only split out once warranted by an overabundance of reliable, secondary source coverage. czar 21:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello From Mike Boxleiter!

Dear Czar,

I'm not sure what the protocol for contacting a wiki editor is, but I thought I would start with you since you did such an amazing job with Mikengreg. My latest game, Secret Hitler has a pretty incomplete entry so far, and we would love to update the image and correct some facts, but we want to be careful not to step on any toes regarding wikipedia policy and such. Do you know who we should talk to or how we could go about getting some basic updates to the page without creating a mess? We don't want to just step in and make changes ourselves if that would look bad, but I'm not sure how to progress otherwise. If you have any advice you are welcome to email me at fucrate at gmail. Otherwise I'll try to check back here in a week or so. Thanks! Fucrate (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike (@Fucrate), it's always fine to reach out on an editor's talk page, but feel free to email (I believe you have my address) if you prefer. I generally recommend the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines before editing on your own game. In brief, it suggests that you (1) declare your affiliation on the article's talk page, and (2) suggest edits on the article's talk page for others to instate rather than editing on your own. Aside for trying to write it yourself, the best help is usually in compiling links from reliable, secondary sources (for example, these) that cover the game. Such a bibliography lets editors focus less on searching and more on paraphrasing those sources. You can also send me links and images and I can take a stab, time-permitting. (To relicense images under a free license, use the license text you sent last time and make sure it comes from an official email address.) czar 06:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1:54

The article 1:54 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:1:54 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Swpb -- Swpb (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were right to revert my edit of Hillbilly Elegy

I had just read the book and was annoyed by the imprecision of the review. But my changes for precision crossed the line into Original Research. You were right to revert. Can't understand why the paper's review was so clumsy. It wasn't as bad as my old student Michiko Kakutani's review of Lee's Watchman, just lazy, I'd have to say. Best, Profhum (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Profhum, have you tried contacting the NYT? czar 21:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Huntington, New York

Hi! I just noticed that back in January, you added a master's thesis as a "general reference" to the Huntington, New York article. Not meaning to denigrate the work of that student in any way, is this really the best "further reading" we can find about the history of Huntington? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61, not sure what you're after, but no, master's theses are generally poor references both for verifiability (moderately inaccessible) and reliability (little to no fact-checking), and yes, it's the most thorough treatment of the town's early history. There are some other books, but they cover the town's history in the span of several pages (sacrificing depth). I've moved the citation to the talk page. (Also, it's from 1931 so I wouldn't worry too much about the student.) czar 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Knight Lore scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Knight Lore article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Unscheduled at your request. See my note at the TFA talk page: I'd have re-added it to the date connection page but I wasn't sure which day in November you were thinking of, so can you make that edit? If it doesn't matter which day it is, put it in on November 1 and add a parenthetical note saying the day doesn't matter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! A link for posterity: Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/Date connection (and No date connection) czar 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Learn to deal

enough

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:1:54, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. You are not entitled to the GAN outcome you want, and you are not entitled to making me repeat my reasoning ad infinitum on your talk page or anywhere else. Your GAN failed. Further attempts to game the system and get a second review without waiting your turn will be met with escalating warnings. Alternatively, and I'm being very generous, I will reconsider my review if you make the changes that are needed. Otherwise, you wait like everyone else. There is a process. You will follow it. —swpbT 14:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Sorry, but I think your review fell short of good faith. The issue remains minor, you have shown no interest in receiving a second opinion or continuing the review and inexplicably ignored (literally deleted) the attempt at talk page mediation. I have participated in hundreds of reviews (you say "process"?) and there is an expectation (read: faith) that the reviewer will err on the side of the encyclopedia, which is working out any surmountable issues when the reviewer is obviously interested in surmounting them (sometimes with a third party) rather than pretending that closing a review as "failed" over two sentences is an acceptable solution. (Two sentences for which I had explained quite rationally why I disagreed with your proposed edits.) Your response, instead of working towards a solution, has been to stonewall another reviewer's participation and to patronize me with a template ...and titled "Learn to deal"? If you think you would be vindicated, re-open the review and let a third party weigh in, as is "process" and as I had asked you weeks ago. czar 16:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:1:54. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I gave your requests fair consideration. I am not obligated to do anything more. Your disagreement does not trump my decision. Your attitude from the beginning has been insufferable, and my initial inclination toward flexibility is long gone. Your continued disruption will lead to a block. —swpbT 12:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) @Swpb: If I might suggest, you need to review the sentiment at WP:DTTR. Right now, you're not talking to czar, you're talking at him. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC) If the "regulars" don't want to be templated, they shouldn't lie. —swpbT 13:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC) @Swpb: As I said, you should review the sentiment. That does not mean "read and subsequently absorb the title and only the title", as it seems quite clear you have done, given that you're doubling down on calling an admin a liar. You should tone it down a notch here and the GAN; a second reviewer has appeared to comment there. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry, is there a new calendar where January 28 is the same as March 19? Because he's an admin, his behavior is beyond reproach? No, quite the opposite. I wouldn't accept that falsification from a newbie; from an admin it's inexcusable. —swpbT 16:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC) @Swpb: No, I'm talking about your behavior here. Not his. I will neither agree nor disagree that his has been optimal; yours, however, can trivially be assessed as, at-best, suboptimal, and at-worst, acting contrary to your own goals (which is, I presume to move the GAN process as-a-whole along). You've now spent more time attacking czar (by calling him a liar and abuser of the process—whether he deserves it or not) rather than simply discussing the feedback which he questioned (and apparently rightly so, in at least one of the two cases). For some reason, you are acting less than dispassionately. Why is that? Specifics: Because he's an admin, his behavior is beyond reproach? That would be a strawman which you have propped up for yourself. No, quite the opposite. I assume this is a reference to WP:ADMINCOND. If so, is your behavior beyond reproach? (I think clearly not, else you and I would not be having this discussion.) Don't throw a stone in a glass house. Besides which, he seems to have explained himself in clear fashion. I wouldn't accept that falsification from a newbie; from an admin it's inexcusable. Something I can also agree on! However (and now the rehash)! I have not argued that czar's behavior is optimal, only that yours is suboptimal. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Unless you can bring yourself to say he didn't lie and abuse process, I'm not feeling the least bit bad about saying he did. I don't mind some mud on me if it makes someone who should know better act better next time. —swpbT 18:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC) An admin who blatantly breaks the rules to serve himself, or another editor who's "too mean" about calling him on it? There's a worse crime here. Remove this, but remember well and long: you are not special. —swpbT 20:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to martyr yourself, make sure the cause is worthy. This incident (and thread) is clearly more about vengeance than love of "process" (and its corollary, love of the project). Remember this was over a single sentence, easily resolved by a third party. As for the other claims: physician, heal thyself. czar 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Fez (video game) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Fez (video game) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "an underdog of a game that received outstanding reviews but was buried under a mountain of coverage pertaining to its outspoken creator, Phil Fish"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On Mountain (video game) and images

First, I hope you noticed that I was able to expand on Mountain (video game) today; plenty of coverage on the title, at least in terms of its reception. Second, I was wondering since you uploaded the OTRS-based free images for OReilly's Everything if you have the ability to get some free images for Mountain in the same manner. (If at minimum, title card, and an animated shot of the spinning mountain). No worries if you can't but can't hurt to ask. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice work! Yes, I'll follow-up when the current ticket is resolved. I'd like to get some video footage too, if possible (GIFs are cute but the webm format appears to work better for all parties) czar 07:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Apostle (film)

Hello Czar! Can you move draft:Apostle (film) to Apostle (film) please and thank you! Tammydemo 14:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tammydemo, ✓ done czar 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Smithsonian Question

Hi Czar! I am the Visiting Scholar with the SFSU Longmore Institute on Disability. I found some really cool content online via a Smithsonian web exhibition and thought it would be amazing to have the pictures on Commons. I know this might not work out, but it's worth a try. I can contact the Museum through the website, and I know you're not directly in the same area of content, but I wanted to see if you might have contact information for someone more specific that I might use. Thanks for any suggestions and I hope your work is going well on your projects! Jackiekoerner (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jackiekoerner! The Smithsonian isn't as open with its images policy as would be expected for a quasi-government entity. Which web exhibition is it? The best route would be to contact the curator who controls that content and let them know what you'd like (release under a Creative Commons cc-by-sa license or freer for use in open culture projects such as Wikipedia). As long as the Smithsonian isn't holding the license rights for revenue generation, it's within their mission to re-license the images, and the curator can either send the consent themselves, or if the copyright hasn't been transferred to the museum, have the photographer or copyright holder send their consent. If you have trouble, let me know and I can ask through the curators at my museum, who might help with the convincing. czar 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! I will try that path first. It's the "EveryBody: An Artifact History of Disability in America" exhibit. I'd also love to get speeches of disability rights activists, as well as other notable speeches on Commons too. So much fun yet to be had. I just love knowledge! Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response. Jackiekoerner (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I hope to see you sometime at an NYC event. You mentioned previously that you moved to the area. I will be at the 19 April meetup and you are invited if you are available to join. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Mastodon (software)

Thanks for tidying up the intro paragraph, but I have put the paragraph on OStatus federation back in, because it's essential to understanding the nature and background on Mastodon as a social network project. I take your point on references, and I am working on finding accurate secondary references (see Talk page) among the cloud of unresearched hype being published recently about Mastodon. Please just take out inappropriate references rather than removing the text, unless you have good reason to believe the text is wrong. In this case, the primary references make it very clear that my text was correct. Can I also suggest checking the page history a bit before making large cuts for technical reasons (inappropriate style or citations), as a lot of valuable info gets lost from Wikipedia articles this way over time. Thanks again for taking an interest in getting this fairly new page right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 08:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Danylstrype, verifiability is a core concept of Wikipedia—we remove content that isn't reliably sourced.

I agree, and we certainly need to find some solid references for the Mastadon page, which is why I started a list of references on the Talk page that can be combed for citations reliable enough to go on the actual page. But when you can see for yourself from the citations I gave that what I wrote in that paragraph is true, removing it gives a false impression, one common in many of the recent articles in the tech press, that Mastodon is an entirely new thing created from scratch. An edit that results in that impression makes a Wikipedia article less accurate, and therefore less useful. Danylstrype (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's better to source the material, if possible, but that entire paragraph is unexplained jargon that would need to be completely rewritten for a general audience. If the intricacies of the protocol are important, a reliable, secondary source will cover it and we wouldn't need to rely on primary sources. czar 08:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As with the paragraph you simplified, my priority with my edits was to fix a number of blatant inaccuracies (see Talk page) in the article. I agree much more improvement is needed, and said so on the talk page. I have attemped to de-jargon the OStatus section. The key point it needs to make is that the Mastodon social network (decentralized network of Mastodon sites) is a subset of the GNU Social "Fediverse", which is a itself a subset of a larger "Federation" that includes Diaspora and Friendica, and that sites using any of these software as their base can interoperate.

I welcome your thoughts on my rewrite, and if you can improve the wording further that would be great. But can we agree that some reference to the OStatus federation is crucial to understand what the Mastodon software is and does? If not, can you maybe ask me some clarifying questions, so we can avoid getting into a mutually exasperating edit war over this paragraph? Also, maybe the Talk page for the Mastodon article is the place to move this discussion? Up to you though :) Danylstrype (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Danylstrype, Wikipedia isn't the place to correct the record on Mastodon—that's something to take up with the sources themselves. Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. If not a single source relates Mastodon to GNU Social, the point is likely not even worth mentioning, and trying to make that point by linking to multiple primary sources constitutes original research. Yep, we can continue on the article's talk page. czar 15:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Mission Impossible 6

Hey Czar, can you please move Draft:Mission: Impossible 6 to Mission: Impossible 6. Thanks! Tammydemo 12:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tammydemo, ✓ done czar 15:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A Star Is Born (2018 film) and Rampage (2018 film)

Hello! Please move Draft:A Star Is Born (2018 film) → A Star Is Born (2018 film) and Draft:Rampage (2018 film) → Rampage (2018 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 06:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Powerpoint

I have a PPT draft; if you can read PPT format, email me and I'll reply with it attached. If not, let me know and I'll upload a screenshot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mikolaj Oledzki

I see that you deleted the Mikolaj Oledzki article twice. Could I please ask for both versions of the deleted article be sent to my sandbox as he is due to make his debut tomorrow. Kind regards.Fleets (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Fleets, you can find it at Draft:Mikolaj Oledzki. Please do not mainspace the article until it (at a minimum) satisfies the rugby league notability criteria and the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikolaj Oledzki. czar 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks and sure thing, I will keep it in my back pocket until that time. Again many thanks.Fleets (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Bot Colony

Could you cast an eye over the sourcing in this article? I saw it being discussed at Drmies' talk and plugged in two sources for the games' being available again, but I am worse than clueless about video games. I had previously parked my sources on the talk page, since I had to go to work, so that's a good location to ream me out for not knowing one gamer site from another :-) If you have time, thanks in advance. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Yngvadottir, I left a few quick thoughts but just ping me on the talk page if you'd like something more specific czar 16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Menacer

Hello I have nominated your work Menacer to be Today's FA on 28 May 2017, the quarter century of the product's unveiling. I hope it is approved, you can be very proud of your work. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Menacer czar 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Inner City

Hi Czar! Can you move Draft:Inner City (upcoming film) to Inner City (upcoming film)? Thanks. NathanielTheBold (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, ✓ done czar 01:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Red Sparrow

Hello! Please take a look at Red Sparrow and edit history of Draft:Red Sparrow (film), which was actually supposed to move in the mainspace, instead a user redirected it. Could you please be able to histmerge the edits of draft? Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, repaired/done czar 02:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi -- just checking to make sure you received the ppt I sent you. No hurry to respond, if you did get it; I just wanted to make sure you weren't still waiting for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Mike Christie, yep, got it. Just need to write the examples first and since my hands are full, I might not get to it for a bit. If you need something specific sooner, just let me know (here or email) czar 02:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Mortal Engines (film)

Hello! Would you mind taking a look at Mortal Engines (film), filming hasn't begun and the anonymous editor is creating it again and again? Please protect it or warn the user, and also a draft is in works, already. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, the IP's Hollywood Reporter source says that "production is underway" czar 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. Then HISTMERG the Draft:Mortal Engines (film) → Mortal Engines (film) please. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)