User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Zeebo/7th Gen problems starting up again

Just making you aware that it started up again, one of the anonymous IP's got an account and left a taunting message threatening further dissruptive editing. I removed it from the talk page as unconsrtuctive flamebait per policy. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Left him a final (only) warning. If he vandalizes again, he'll be on indef-block for being a vandalism-only account - that account has been around since 2007 and the vast majority of his edits have been vandalism. I'm surprised he hasn't already been blocked, but since it's been a while since he's been given an official warning, probably best to follow policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking in to it. Thanks. In case you didn't notice, he did a few more removals of the 7th generation tag from the Zeebo article, both under that account and the anonymous IP (probably a school computer or something, looks like he vandalized some high school article in the past, most likely the one he goes to). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And he just vandalized the talk page again. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, saw that. Per the warning I left him last time, he's been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

re: 69.23.100.207

Thank you for the longer block (i'm so sick of cleaning up after their edits, lol :3), but considering that IP's history of posting unverifiable/false information and all the recent warnings, are you saying I should've gone directly to AIV with it this time without having bothered to warn them? And what should be done if they come back from the two-week block and immediately start up again, for that matter? I'm not quite sure on the warning etiquette involved with active, persistent vandals. ^^;; -- Khisanth (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! AIV is for clear, repeated vandalism. I'm not entirely sure if this would qualify, but the more general WP:ANI board may also help. But in general, the main thing is just to get an admin's attention - any admin can look at the situation and make a decision without necessarily needing to discuss it with a larger group of admins. In cases like this where it's clearly disruptive and the person is NOT listening, best just to block.

In the future, if this person comes back and starts disrupting again, they should get just a final warning (level 4 or only warning), then another block, which will last longer that time. (Block application varies from person to person - if I do the block again, I'll likely do it for 1 month, but another admin might decide to make it longer, and/or permanent.)

Several of the articles this person has been editing are on my watchlist, and I'm watching the IP user's talk page as well, so I'll likely see any further disruption from this user within a few hours of when it happens. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

– Steel 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tron Legacy

I think that deletion was due to the whole discussion being inappropriate for a Talk page. Have you read the text? - Denimadept (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. It's forum material. That's why I didn't revert it either. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no comments in the edit summaries for those deletions, it didn't look like a legit delete to me. Not a really big deal - I'm just trying to keep the policies going. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pac-man

WP:BRD is an essay. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so it's an essay. But it is an essay that helps shape the way everyone does things here, and it relates very strongly to the policies that ARE in place. Just because it's an essay doesn't mean you should ignore it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it mean I should pay attention to the ramblings of some minority of editors, sirrah. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Atari 8-bit family

We could really use your input/guidance as an admin there. In summation: A new editor (Waskoma) started several revert wars at the article, has been invited to engage in the consensus and dialogue process, failed to generate consensus, feels strongly against said consensus and has since used every opportunity and invitation to further participate in improving the article to go back and try and discredit and rehash consensus. This article has been his only contribution, and his mindless push towards his agenda is becoming rather disruptive. Guyinblack has tried to steer it in more productive directions, but it appears even that is not working. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a fairly long reply to all three of the main parties in this discussion, including you, on the talk page, so I won't bother repeating it here. Gist of it is that I reminded Waskoma of the policies he's not abiding by, explained to him why I agree with your assessment that the article in question qualifies as an analysis and why it's reliable, and told him that if he wants to challenge consensus, there are better ways to do it than what he's been doing. I also advised that you back away from the discussion for a bit, because I think you're getting yourself a little too deeply rooted and personally invested in the argument, and you might be having difficulty seeing the bigger picture, and I basically warned you both about 3RR, since this edit war's been going on for a while. I told Badger Drink to cool it with the insults, because they're not helping.

I have a concern for you, though: It does look to me like Waskoma came to your talk page to discuss the matter with you, and from the history there, you basically just deleted his comments and didn't respond to them there. I understand you directed the conversation to the article talk page, but he likely interpreted your lack of response on your talk page as confrontational and as an unwillingness to discuss the issue. (His edit summaries pretty much say that that's how he took your action.) I would advise that a better way to do that would be to let his comments stand where they are, and to reply to them on your talk page (and/or on his) suggesting that the article talk page is a more appropriate place to discuss the issue.

Also, IMO he does have a valid point: I think he's misunderstood the policies on weasel words and original research, but the way Collins's article is written, it does appear to be just as much a subjective review as a targeted analysis, and the door is open there to contradict some of the claims made in the article. From what I read of the discussion, it looks like you and Waskoma are very firmly on opposite extremes of how to handle this article, where I personally think the real answer lies somewhere in between. This is why I think you might want to back away a bit - it's all too easy to fall into the trap of digging in your heels and going "I'm right and you're wrong" when arguments like this arise.

All that said, SIGGRAPH is widely trusted as an authority in the computer graphics field, and they were instrumental in presenting and evaluating technological advancements at the time, and they still are today. I have seen nothing that suggests that their articles are as fundamentally flawed as Waskoma suggests Collins's article is. So my own take on it is that the source should stay, but if there's a genuine wording issue that mischaracterizes the content, that should be addressed separately.

Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your response and involvement. As far as his edit summaries and why I moved it away from my talk page - it's exactly the opposite of what you're interpreting. He started reverting as an anonymous IP before putting anything on my talk page and continuing the practice after he got his account, even when warned about 3RR. Then he started on my talk page with what I took as a loaded discussion that would go nowhere (i.e. circles), hence the redirectment to get other people involved. And by the page full of people trying unsuccessfully to reason with him, my feelings of how it would go were certainly proven. As far as taking a step back now - I actually wanted to back out of it, which is why I asked you to get involved in an admin capacity (and why I ignored his latest edit against consensus and rant on the discussion page). My concern was also that he appears to be a problem editor, and I don't see this ending with this issue - especially when the reception part of the article is started per Guyinblack's suggestion (which is all I'd really like to focus any efforts on my part towards). I also don't see him accepting your attempt at a compromise and will most likely raise issue with the examples you used. I'm tired of having to deal with stuff like this, and was just mentioning to Guyinblack about trying to take a break from Wikipedia and then this started up. It just wastes so much of my time going in circles with these types. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And point proven - he just changed your rewrite in to his same one he's being trying to push the entire time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Mcjakeqcool

Thanks for the offer at ANI. I would appreciate it if you would respond to him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta :):)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mcjakeqcool

Hello KieferSkunk. From perusal of various ANI threads, I understand you were Mcjakeqcool's 'last chance block reviewer.' You've declined an unblock there. I join with those who believe that Mcj. has exhausted his chances on Wikipedia. Unless you object, I'll go ahead and decline his last unblock, and disable his talk page access. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. He seems to be still using his talkpage as a blog - Tan has thrown stuff off advertising his account on some christmas blog. Unless his protestations about 'following the rules' (which I don't think he has a clue what they are) has moved you, then go for it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Video Game

Have another discussion that your expertise on quality of information, and neutral viewpoints would be valued in. SharkD wants to merge graphical video game over to video game. Everyone is in agreement the article is a stub and shouldn't exist on it's own. It's just split (1.5 vs 2, and I'm saying 1.5 because I'm not sure how to interpret Xeno's vote) on whether to actually merge the content itself in to video games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two questions.

I don't think I was 100% clear with my questions in the article discussion for the Mega Drive. I was wondering if I should include the picture of the references sheet, or should I include the press releases mentioned as non clickable references, or, should I just leave it as is? I'm fine with leaving it as is, if you are.

I'd like to add in the revenue data to the Console Wars section of the article as well (which is sourced from the Rivalry in Video Games book)
PS, I like Skunks too, I had a crush on Fifi La Fume for the longest time, and my wife even reminds me of her.--PimpUigi 17:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya. That's cute about the skunks bit. I've always liked them - even knew someone in California who had one as a pet. Sweet animals when raised properly. :) I used to be pretty heavily into portions of the "furry" scene - still like the art, but not really active in the community anymore. But that's where the name comes from.

Regarding the Sega stuff: I'm honestly not an expert on references, so I don't know which of those would be more suitable. In general, the bar is verifiability, so if one form is more easily verifiable than the other, I'd use that. It doesn't hurt to include both. Ideally, the reference would either be cited in book/magazine form in such a way that someone with access to the same resource could find it (like, look it up in the library or find a back issue of a magazine that has the article, etc.), or would be a link to a web archive that includes the information. There are guidelines on that in WP:RS and links from that article to others on the technical parts of citing information. But in any event, so long as someone can follow your work, so to speak, the references are fine.

I'd say to include both references. Someone with more experience in this area can then help refine it if they feel it needs refining. Hope that helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I'll add in those references too, sometime today. Your name is pretty cosmic. My wife had a great teacher named Mr. Kiefer, plus the skunk/furry thing, it's like you were meant to be here to help.

I guess I'll throw up the revenue data as well into the console wars section, from what I can see the source trail is there and reliable. Oh, I auto watch everything I edit too, just to be safe.--PimpUigi 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Metroid Prime edits

I will accept your statement at face value, and state that my actions were based on the IP's other edits, which clearly were vandalism. I was overzealous. Thanks for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Seventh Gen template Zeebo problems again

Starting up again, this time with another disruptive editor trying to push WP:OR viewpoints. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pank Claw

Just so you know, he blanked my user page after I had done the last revert on his Ms. Pac-Man edit. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Pank Claw has been indefinitely blocked for disruption and edit warring, and I would have indeff'ed them for impersonating an administrator if they had not been immediately before I got there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good edits on the Mega Drive article

I really like the way you edited the Variations rewrite. I was wondering if you'd look at the Enhancement chips section I added. I'm also planning on adding a paragraph or two to the console wars about the Mortal Kombat/video game ratings/congress event, and planning on adding a bit of history to the Emulator section, about the development of Genesis emulation on the PC. I wonder if you would be willing to help with those, maybe even get me started on the former??--SexyKick 03:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

JP MD logo

regarding {{pd-textlogo}} of File:JP_MegaDrive_Logo.gif, you might want to try asking at WP:MCQ

I don't faith in my wiki-etiquette skills to do it myself--SexyKick 03:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like this has reached a stand still again. What do you suggest now? I still think you should talk directly with JM, and show him that the majority consensus is that we need at least two logos. If not, do you think I should be bold and re add the Genesis logo?--SexyKick 05:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mega Drive article name

I intend to make this discussion later on, but I wonder what your thoughts will be.

I'd like to change the name of the article to Mega Drive/Genesis so there is less undue weight, and Mega Drive still comes first. I completely agree the article shouldn't be called the Genesis article, but I don't think the current name quite covers it.--SexyKick 20:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a very long discussion about this several years ago on WT:VG, and the decision was to stick with "Mega Drive". The reasons IIRC were that the Mega Drive brand is the one that better represents the console throughout the world, having a hybrid name for the article is confusing and awkward, and that the distinction between the MD and Genesis brands can be clearly explained in the article's lead. That last one is part of why I'm arguing that we should have the Genesis logo at the top - basically to make sure that the Genesis brand IS clearly identified.

But I think you'll have a harder time convincing the WikiProject that we should go back to the hybrid title. To my knowledge, there are very few such articles on Wikipedia - usually they are either consolidated to the more prominent/well-known name, or split into multiple articles. We decided that while the Genesis had independent notability, there wasn't enough unique information about it separate from Mega Drive to warrant its own article.

That said, feel free to bring it up on WT:VG - the consensus may have changed over the last few years. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Both you, and X201 feel the same way. I didn't know about the "don't have hybrid article names" guideline either. It's mostly good the way it is anyway I suppose. Please talk to User:JMilburn about the inclusion of the Genesis logo, as he's the entire hurdle standing in the way of its inclusion. I'm happy with a either MD logo + Genesis logo setup.--SexyKick 23:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's really an official guideline or policy on article names that touches on this specific issue - the more definite guideline is to make sure the title accurately reflects the article's subject. But I think I remember working with X201 on that discussion a few years ago.

I haven't seen JMilburn say anything recently on this subject, but if/when he does come back to it, I'll try to understand his reasoning as well. It didn't sound to me like his opinions and view of policy were necessarily in line with consensus, but maybe I missed something. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have taken it higher, but I don't think I have the pull, status, or wiki know how to effectively take it higher and have it make a difference.--SexyKick 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You evidently don't have enough faith in your status as an editor. :) Aside from administrative matters, like blocking people for being purely disruptive, no single person aside from Jimbo Wales has final say on what goes on Wikipedia. Not me, not JMilburn, not you, etc. Wikipedia works on consensus among a larger group of editors, and virtually all of the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are based on this concept. (The five pillars are the only things that are set by Jimbo himself, but even then, they're pretty much common-sense.)

So it's not a matter of your status or the amount of pull you have. So long as you aren't being a jerk or disrupting the project unduly, you and I are equals here. It's a matter of how well you present your point. If you believe that the Mega Drive article should be renamed to "Mega Drive/Genesis", by all means, make a case for it in the appropriate forum (in this case, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games). The reason I'm discouraging you from doing so is not because I have any more say in the matter than you (I don't), but because I think you'll get a lot of resistance from the community since the topic had already been discussed at length several years ago. Like I said, though, consensus may have changed, and consensus isn't always right.

If you still want to discuss it and try to swing consensus toward the hybrid article name, you should feel free (and I mean that) to bring it up. Just don't take it personally if you get a lot of people telling you "it's already been discussed" and "I see no reason to change it." The nicer editors will explain the reasons for decision (like I'm doing) and, if they're especially industrious, will point you to the archived discussion. You can also search through the archives to see the old discussions if you want.

Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just chipping in that I agree with everything KieferSkunk said above. If you think you have a good case for changing something on WP, go ahead and put it forward. As KieferSkunk says though, don't take any opposition personally. Also you may find that certain proposals may have bad memories for people as well. - X201 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have faith in my intelligence to outsmart who seems to be a senior image admin. You and Alphaton both communicate far better than I do. Otherwise I wouldn't have DCE angry with me. ; )

IMHO consensus seems to be that the Genesis logo belongs in the infobox. The only person I see argue against that is DCE, since he thinks it's not the "official" logo, and of course J Milburn, who thinks there should only be one logo period, no matter what the logo is.

OK yeah, I don't take it personally. I just think a hybrid name suits the article much better, since the sales were towards the Genesis (23 million,) and that's just one region selling much more than all other regions combined. The wikipedia search tracking shows that Sega Genesis and Mega Drive are almost even, some months Sega Genesis is the more looked up term, while others it's the Mega Drive. Mega Drive should clearly be first, since it's the original name, and the more worldly name. I think the more interesting news centers around the Genesis/NA more (violence/ratings system, heated market battle, Tom Kaliske) but certainly both have interesting stories (Brazil/Europe market dominance, or Japan's many unique accessories.) I don't think I have any chance if the other major article contributors don't have the same consensus though. The archived discussion I saw didn't mention a hybrid name, just fighting over Genesis vs. Mega Drive...but I'm sure I didn't see all of the archived discussions.--SexyKick 09:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though we had this consensus, there was no getting around his NFC tag for improper use of NFC without going down to one logo. I tried two logos (both JP+Genesis and PAL+Genesis,) and I tried "everyone agreed all the logos need to be there" but neither worked when it came to removing the tag. It even pissed off DCE, as he saw it as "attempting to sneak the tag away," as if people can't view history of articles, and don't watch articles they're involved in, or some such non-sense. I don't understand the way his brain works. Suffice it to say I assumed people would notice the tag was removed (especially when I leave a message on J Milburn's page about it.) SexyKick 03:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mega Drive article; Videogame Rating Council

Hey, I've created a section for the Videogame Rating Council. [1] I'd like it if you could give it a quick look through and make sure it's well written, and makes sense.--SexyKick 07:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NFC tag for Mega Drive

I removed all logos, two screenshots and two photos from the article and subsequently removed the NFC tag. Please have a look at the current version of the article here and comment on the article's talk page if you agree with the changes (cause I fear they'll be reverted within the next few hours). Thanks. DCEvoCE (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mega Drive article - Videogame Ratings Council

Hey Kiefer, I was wondering if you could take a look at this section and see if you could help write it properly. Sega_genesis#Videogame_Rating_Council Thanks!--SexyKick 05:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Zeebo discussion

As you've no doubt seen already, there has been a deal of disagreement in the past over whether the Zeebo console should be listed on the "seventh generation console" template. One user in particular, Marty Goldberg, has been extremely antagonistic towards anyone trying to suggest otherwise. He has repeatedly falsely accused people of vandalism, has suggested that any sort of opinion contrary to his own has no place on a talk page ("personal opinion has no place here"), and has continuously acted aggressive and condescending towards people mentioning the issue on both the Zeebo and template talk pages. From your comments on the template's talk page it seems like you are deliberately allowing him to do this. I'm assuming you're acting in the best interests of a rational discussion, but it's not conducive to an open debate when one side says "an Administrator agrees with me, therefore you are wrong" to every single attempt at a discussion on the issue. 71.246.76.39 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll agree that if Marty is using the stance "An admin agrees with me, therefore you are wrong," then he's not using what most admins would consider a valid argument. That said, I've been working with Marty for years on Wikipedia - he is a seasoned veteran in the game industry, and I trust his judgment in most matters related to the industry. While he can get a little hot-headed at times in debates, I find he is more often right than wrong in such discussions.

On Zeebo in particular: Marty has been consistent in pointing to reliable third-party sources that call Zeebo a 7th-gen console. They all make it clear that the Zeebo doesn't attempt to compete with Xbox 360, Wii, etc. in either market or capability, but that it is still considered 7th-generation because of the time period in which it was released, and on the technology it was derived from. Marty and I have dealt with some overzealous users who, despite the sources, insisted that Zeebo wasn't "allowed" to be a 7th-gen console, but when pressed either couldn't or refused to provide any reasoning other than personal opinion.

Shutting down a discussion with phrases like "personal opinion has no place here" is hostile, I agree, but you should understand that I think he's tired of debating this topic. So far, neither he nor I have found a reliable source that has claimed in any way that Zeebo shouldn't be part of the 7th-gen market, much less explained why. Thus, people who have insisted on that point have come across as pushing an agenda, eventually disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, etc. Some have gotten blocked over the issue, not because "the people in charge" disagree with their opinions, but because they refuse to work with us constructively and just resort to further disruption of the project. If you read the blocking policy, you'll see that admins have a pretty strict set of criteria under which to block people - usually for repeated vandalism, personal attacks, making threats, etc.

Marty is right in having called at least some of the people in the past vandals - when an edit is reverted or undone and the editor continually repeats the edit even after being shown why his edit is inappropriate, the policies consider it to be vandalism at that point. This is also the point at which a person's edits cross the "good faith" line - the first time someone makes an incorrect or inappropriate edit (when it's not obviously vandalism), we assume good faith and try to explain it to the user. But in the Zeebo situation, we've frequently ended up with the editor in question just re-reverting the edit without explanation, refusing to talk to us about it, and even making personal attacks (arguments along the lines of "You don't know what you're talking about" and, literally, "Zeebo stays off the 7th-gen list because I say so." How can that not be considered disruptive?

If you still feel that Marty is being combative, let me know and please point me to where the current discussion is going on, and I'll take a look. I hope this helps clear the air, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'd like to mention that the user who Marty was most frequently arguing with, User talk:Guinea pig warrior, was blocked indefinitely just a few days ago. He has a pretty long history of edit-warring and incivility, and he's been blocked multiple times in the past for such. I was not involved in any of those blocks - the last time I'd warned GPW of a block on his talk page was in December 2009. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The only interaction I've had is with this anonymous IP is on the Zeebo talk page is here, and there is nothing combative in anything stated towards him. On the contrary, he created a very grandstanding discussion topic with some very false accusations. Likewise, the only thing that could come off as combative is the repeated dealings with GuinneaPigWarrior's disruptive edits on the template page. Which after 9 times of the same revert with no new explination, becomes a matter of combating disrupting editing. And let me say I did not intend my repeating of your statement in the light of "an admin agrees with me and you're wrong". The admin part was to realize that he's crossing the line already with the repeated reversions without any sort of counter reference. The repeat of what you stated was to clarify once again (as had been done many times in the thread over and over and over again) that there's a consensus based on reliable third party references that has yet to be proven as otherwise through other third party references. As in not just me as he was portraying it as. In fact the entire first half of my response there sets up the entire context: "We've gone around and around with this with you (we as in more than just me, in contrast to what you insinuated - lied - about above. You've been explained here, and on your talk page as well. It has nothing to do with not agreeing with me, it has to do with you not agreeing with the given references that state it as 7th gen. "

"It isn't because I said so" can only be used so many times and by so many people before it becomes a waste of time to revisit the argument. I don't see how pointing out that personal opinion or WP:OR does not have a place here is hostile after repeatedly being told personal opinion as a reason. That statement has been told to me plenty of times when I was first starting here, and I'm certainly not the only person to state it in that manner. Regardless, this may be a non-issue soon anyways as the project is revisiting the whole generation label thing and looking to move towards a year grouping categorization. You can see the debate here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) (nod) And as I said, I understand you being tired of the arguments. I am too. And as I said to the IP user, I trust your judgment - we've been working together for years and you're more frequently right than wrong, and very thorough with your use of sources. (Much more so than me, frankly.) I just wanted you to understand that it's bad practice to quote admin warnings - I know you didn't mean it that way, but whether the person on the other end is new or experienced, it can still look like "I'mma get my big brother on you", so I just wanted to ask you to be more careful about it. :)

Honestly, I think your tone was at least partly justified. The argument's been going on for, what, two years now? Just the same, I'm just trying to address the IP user's concerns about your tone and explain the context, assuming good faith that this user has genuine concerns and isn't just being a sock-puppet to a blocked account or something like that. I've been mostly uninvolved for the last six months or so, so I frankly could be missing some context. Always possible. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pac-Man

You are correct about the conclusion we came to in 2008 about the F word. I reverted the wrong edit. My intent was to put the article back to the way we agreed, but I wasn't paying very close attention to what I was doing.Asher196 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Metroid Prime: Trilogy Featured topic

I am messaging to get your opinion on the possible creation of a Featured topic which consists of Metroid Prime: Trilogy, Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, as you have participated in the editing of one or more of these articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Think this is more interesting than the above... igordebraga ≠ 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Atari merger question

Since you were active in these pages at one time, thought you might want to participate in the discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. "Manier"

I thought you might enjoy this response to your post, along with my polite but firm response. I wish I could figure this character out; his edit history doesn't show disruptive edits elsewhere, so why here? --McDoobAU93 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Next round ... care to weigh in? --McDoobAU93 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh snap ... apparently someone else's patience with this character did just that. He's been blocked for a year, and cannot even edit his talk page. --McDoobAU93 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm trying to find out why. He made three edits yesterday. Two of them have stood, and I can see why, and the third has some basically minor corrections to it. Suddenly he's banned. I don't get it. I thought he was learning. And banning an editor after they've made useful edits is counterproductive, in my book. Sounds a lot like WP:BITE to me. - Denimadept (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I don't see any evidence that this editor was blocked. Check the page again - there is no block history for him. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there it is - I think I got a cached history page by accident. Now I can see the block - I'll ask Alison about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the block doesn't really matter - apparently the same user is back under a different IP and is intent on continuing the argument. Will add this to the questions on Alison's talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Welcoming me to Wikipedia

Thank you for the warm welcome! I will definitely study the help links you gave me in order to be the best Wikipedian I can be! StealthMantis (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)StealthMantis

No problem! :) Lemme know if I can answer any questions for you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Reversions on Mega Drive

I understand that you want to keep things civil, as do I. However, please don't revert substantive arguments in an ongoing discussion on a talk page. This could be considered disruptive behavior and could lead to administrative actions, even blocks. Try and engage people civilly and address their arguments open and honestly. If a discussion does not violate wikipedia policy, do not remove it from a talk page.LedRush (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You totally missed my point. The discussion has ended - another editor closed it and I'm trying to respect that editor's decision. We clearly do NOT have consensus on the issue, and I don't think continuing to argue about it is going to help matters. Further, the closure notice specifically states that further discussion should be at least put in another section - I'm asking you to take it to Cerejota's talk page if you really need to keep it going - your comments toward him were quite antagonistic, to the point that I almost gave you another WP:NPA warning. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, though, in saying I reverted incorrectly - I had thought your comments had been added inside the section that was closed off, but they weren't. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that your removal of my comments was in error. If you wish to comment further on my tone, please start a wikiquette case...your accusations are frustrating and misplaced. At the very least, continue them here rather than further disrupting the discussion on the Mega Drive talk page.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about. So far, each time ANYONE has pointed out that your tone is causing issues, you've responded with this attitude of "It's not MY problem! You got a problem, file a WQA/RFC/whatever!" But you don't seem to realize that you're coming across as unnecessarily antagonistic, and as a result, people are responding to you in kind. When they do, you promptly accuse them of being antagonistic toward you. It's not helping your cause - I should not have to go to WQA or any of the other dispute resolution pages to get you to examine your tone.

My other issue with the way you handled the argument at Talk:Mega Drive is that you kept arguing, rearguing and re-rearguing your point every single time someone made a counterpoint. You even did so in the RFC section where someone else had to ask you to back off and let the RFC folks respond to the request. (Granted, I'm guilty of joining the argument there too, but I backed off when asked.) After a while, it becomes unnecessary to do this - the conversation just balloons and, as you saw, gets heated when you do that. Trust me, I've done it myself many times, and I've learned over time to not do it.

At some point, you really need to ask if it's really worth the effort to prove your point. It was clear early on in the discussion that we had people on both sides of the issue and thus no clear consensus to start with, but if that had been my argument, I would have dropped it once I saw that I wasn't getting anywhere. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there are many problems with this post, and because you can't seem to let this go, even after you acknowledge that your antagonistic remarks against me were unfounded and made in error, it seems I'll have to respond to you. (1) People started off antagonistic towards anyone who argued for the "Genesis" name. This is typical of people who have participated in discussions in the past (they project past unpleasantness with the discussion on the current participants. Please see Miremare's ad hominem and completely off-topic attacks on people who argued certain ways on sales statistics). Please also look at Miremare's continued attacks, misrepresentations, and unwillingness to engage in honest dialog. Only one of my posts was borderline uncivil, but the same cannot be said or Miremare or you. Your continued threats to go to WQA are in themselves uncivil, your warning of me was borderline, and your disruptive reverting of my talk page contributions was clearly uncivil, as was your comments about me concerning them. Take a look in the mirror before you cast stones. This whole conversation is pretty silly as I am known to be a civility nazi on other contentious boards, though I do confess that I tend to reflect others' attitudes (when they are nice, I am nice back, when they are antagonistic, I am less nice). (2) If your point is that when I am confronted with entrenched viewpoints I should ignore them, I disagree. I believe it necessary to first try and find out why they thing the way they do so we can get to understand each other and second, let others know of my reasoning so that they can make informed decisions. (3) If you look at the RfC section, you'll note that we did get somewhere. Once people arguing for the "Mega Drive" started actually responging to points rather than continually "Not hear that", we could get to understand how their thinking is working. For example, we now know that Scepter's view of CommonName seems to hinge on the definition of "significant" majority. That gives us some clarity on how to understand each other. But continually ignoring others' arguments and creating strawmen ("people are following policy just to follow policy", "people are using google as their sole reasong", etc.) helps no one. When people make these factual mistakes, it must be addressed. You're guilty of this as well, though you don't take any resonsibility for your actions. (4) I've apologized when I've felt I've wrong, admitted mistakes when I've felt I've made them, and bent over backwards to understand others' views. The same cannot be said for your or Miremare, though you've each offered a nice apology once (and for those, I was genuinely grateful).LedRush (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, you take great exception to being told, no matter how nicely, that you're out of line, and the beginning of this three-paragraph-long response you just posted is proof of that to me. Frankly, I do not think very highly of your attitude at all.

• "...and because you can't seem to let this go..." -- You were the one who told me to continue the conversation here. And you're absolutely right: I'm not willing to abide bad behavior. I deal with enough of it in my daily life, thank you.
• "Only one of my posts was borderline uncivil, but the same cannot be said of Miremare or you." -- When was I uncivil? I gave you a civility warning because of what I interpreted to be a personal attack. You took great offense at that and insisted you had done absolutely nothing wrong while pointing the finger at Miremare, and ever since then you have been (to be blunt) whining about how mean he was to you. I read the conversation very carefully before I made my decision to warn just you, because in my opinion, Miremare's brusqueness was in response to an already heated discussion in which you were already being antagonistic. Miremare has been known to be hotheaded at times, yes, and has even resorted to foul language now and then (for which he has been admonished multiple times), but I did not see anything in the comments he'd made toward you up to that point that constituted the same sort of personal attack that you responded to him with. (You might note that I did tell BOTH of you to cool down in the thread.)
• "Your continued threats to go to WQA are in themselves uncivil, your warning of me was borderline..." I never once threatened to take you to any of the dispute resolution centers. Only my previous edit summary in this thread even mentioned doing so (and only as a last resort).
• "...and your disruptive reverting of my talk page contributions was clearly uncivil..." -- You said you accepted my apology for having done that, so why are you still bringing it up? I admitted that I was mistaken in that case - I had thought you were adding comments to a section that had been closed, and if you hadn't already beaten me to it, I would have reverted my own edits once I realized my mistake. For you to keep harping on that as an example of incivility is a good demonstration of failing to assume good faith.
• "If your point is that when I am confronted with entrenched viewpoints I should ignore them, I disagree." -- Please read what I said again. I'm not advocating that you ignore people who are stuck in their ways. But you saw what happened when you tried to argue with them: Both you and the other side got further and further entrenched, to the point of needing several people to step in and try to cool things down. To be perfectly blunt, you chose a poor method to try to reason with them, and it ended up ruffling a lot of feathers. Again, I speak from experience - I've been in the exact same position in the past, and I've learned that sometimes it just ain't worth the fight.
• "For example, we now know that Scepter's view of CommonName seems to hinge on the definition of "significant" majority. That gives us some clarity on how to understand each other." -- I will just point out that I had made this same point several times before the RFC, though not strictly in relation to the policy since I was trying not to get sucked into the "letter of the law" debate.
• "You're guilty of [continually ignoring others' comments] as well, though you don't take any resonsibility [sic] for your actions." -- To the extent I've been able, I've always tried to take responsibility for my actions and my viewpoints. I don't see why you're so intent on making me out to be another bad guy when all I've been trying to do is add perspective to the discussion and to express my own viewpoint and why I have it. You'll note that I came to your defense at one point when another editor had clearly misinterpreted your stance. I've made a great effort to ensure that my responses to all parties have been fair, civil and well-reasoned, and wherever I've failed to achieve those goals, I will more than happily take responsibility for the results.

To conclude, I'm very disappointed in the direction this conversation has gone. I'm sure you will say that I could have and should have prevented it, and somewhere deep down you're probably thinking that I should just shut up and leave you alone. And I will, if that's what you desire. I've said my piece. If you feel it warrants anything like an RFC, you're certainly entitled to file one - I don't intend to do so against you unless I continue to see further incivility toward other editors. In the meantime, you and I can agree to disagree on each other's methods and motives - frankly, I have better things to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Heeey, I don't use foul language! In real life sure (I work with computers so it's unavoidable), but never on WP. I'm the first to admit that I'm easily irritated, but never to that extent. Nor have I ever been admonished for anything. So I think you might be confusing me with someone else there. :) Miremare 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And LedRush, as I said on your talk page, I'm sorry if you took anything I said the wrong way. If you still think, despite my assurances to the contrary, that I have personally attacked you, I'm sure we can look at what was said and further apologies be made if necessary. The link to my talk page is right here: Miremare 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I think you're right, Mire. There was another person I was working with a while back who was passionate about Sega-related topics and who tended to cuss a lot - think I got you confused with him, but the name is escaping me at the moment. Sorry about that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just incase you missed my response to you at the video game talk page...

I'd much rather have you help us take the article to GA or FA like you were able to do with the Super NES article way back when than have to worry about this stuff. I'm not really sure where to go from here, and I don't really want to sacrifice any information (which is kind of what I'm worried FACR would do).--SexyKick 08:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For doing the right thing, cheerfully and civilly, in Mega Drive. Noleander (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, civilly, okay. Cheerfully? Not so much. But thank you. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Civility

When you compain about others' supposed lack of civility, you should try and be civil. [2] Normally I let things like this go, but your repeated and unfounded accusations of incivility are, in themselves, uncivil and really getting annoying. I ignored your above, completely ridiculous rationalization of your incivility and misstatements of facts alone so that you would just stop this madness. Open up a WQA or AN/I or leave me alone.LedRush (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. If you'd been watching me arguing with someone else the way you and Chaos were, you'd be a little irate too. Is it any wonder nobody wants to work on that damn article anymore?

Go ahead and file a WQA or ANI yourself if you feel it's necessary, but I stand by what I said. You were off-topic, it was annoying as hell, and I'm tired of having discussions sidetracked by finger-pointing bitch-fests. And I'm tired of trying to be polite to people who, frankly, don't deserve it anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Come on guys, you two are both great editors. We should just relax here and let the whole thing go...it's not cool seeing you two annoyed at each other. Both of you actually have the best interests of the article at heart rather than just fighting over the title.--SexyKick 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not trying to claim that anyone here doesn't have the article's best interests at heart. I'm just really tired of all the bullshit that is this ridiculous move discussion, so you'll have to pardon me if I start calling bullshit where I see it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{ec} "You were off-topic, it was annoying as hell, and I'm tired of having discussions sidetracked by finger-pointing bitch-fests. And I'm tired of trying to be polite to people who, frankly, don't deserve it anymore." Hilarious. That was ironical, right? SexyKick, you are, of course, right. However, only one editor here starts arguments on civility (hint: it's the uncivil one). Also, only one has walked away from them when they've proven fruitless. Let's see if Kiefer can join that group.LedRush (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I think that's very good advice, LedRush. I'll come back in another two months and see if you're still engaging in personal attacks against editors you disagree with. Have fun. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) I find it perfectly understandable to call bullshit etc. as you did in the articles talk page with the "intractable" thing. Chaos certainly proved himself to be a bit insane, more and more so as he left the intractable argument behind, he did eventually settle himself. But everyone need to try to avoid the more sharp edged parts of your comments. The whole second part of your comment here is very sharp edged LedRush. He's certainly going to take offense to that. : (--SexyKick 15:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, the offense was already taken. But seriously, I give up - I should never have come back to that cesspit that people call a "discussion". It's back off of my Watchlist. As far as I'm concerned, LedRush will never admit that his attitude needs any sort of examination or adjustment, so it's not worth my time anymore to try to convince him. If you want to, that's fine, but I'm done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had wrote that before I saw you had seen it. I understand your desolation with the talk page right now, but I hope you'll still be able to help us if and when (and I don't foresee it in the near future) we get to GA and hopefully FA review. My writing is no where near as clear as yours, and I have a feeling I'll be a bit lost with changes they want me to make to existing paragraphs etc.--SexyKick 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(a few more ecs) Sexy, there is an issue when editors like Kiefer feel they can hurl unsubstantiated accusations of personal attacks when there weren't any. And to do so while engaging in them is the height of sad irony. Yes, I was sharp with both Chaos and Kiefer. Chaos indicated that those of us discussing commonname were the main problem with the article while he himself was engaging in knock-down fights on "and". If he attacks me for pointing that out, I think I can be sharp. Kiefer has continually engaged in uncivil behavior while accusing others of doing it. I'll be sharp in response to that as well. The tone on the article isn't great, but it has actually settled down a lot since Miremare and Kiefer started participating less. My being sharp hasn't helped, but these repeated accusations of incivility ratchet everything up a noch to the point where it becomes an impediment to getting anything done. But rather than let situations naturally subside, Kiefer pours gasoline everywhere and then blames the fire. I have admitted to mistakes when I've made them, and conceded that my tone isn't always great. Kiefer cannot admit anything of the sort, and still hurls hypocritical accusations at me with no sense of irony.LedRush (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) I am being short with you because I am angry at you, because I feel you have been sidetracking the discussion, and because you take such great offense at me whenever I point out that you're sidetracking things. Yes, I'm being totally uncivil, by the strictest definition of the word. But you know what? I don't care - I have treated you no differently than anyone else who I've seen do the same thing, but you are the only one in recent history who has taken such offense at it. And that gets on my nerves. And because it's getting on my nerves and I'm losing my temper, I am once again recusing myself from the discussion, before it gets worse.

In other words, you win. I mean it. You've proven your point, and I cannot argue with you any more.

Now, I will kindly ask you once to continue your discussion elsewhere and to leave my talk page alone. I need time to cool off and clear my head. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Video game screenshot rationale/doc listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Video game screenshot rationale/doc. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Video game screenshot rationale/doc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)