User talk:Lembrazza

Metroid Prime

The page clearly states it has a large open-ended world, and is listed as an example on here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1902/game_design_essentials_20_open_.php?print=1 Dohvahkiin (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint Seiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, 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 some 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. It seems like you decided to completely ignore WP:CATDEF. Just because you created some new categories, doesn't mean you can add it to a prodigious amount of articles, turning a blind eye to what those articles actually say about the genre. If you have a problem with this feel free to take it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Chamith (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Alien: Isolation. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please do not remove other genres or categories (which are sourced) in retaliation for another editor removing this "action thriller" category you have made. This is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Action thriller video games

Category:Action thriller video games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soetermans. T / C 14:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction action video games

Category:Science fiction action video games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 4. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Soetermans. T / C 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction adventure films

Category:Science fiction adventure films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soetermans. T / C 11:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Soetermans. T / C 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you post something like this or improperly remove another editor's post you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request reblock with an appropriate cool-down block. Reason: the block reason (WP:NOTHERE) is plain wrong, as is clearly seen from the user's edit history since 2013. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't unblock based on other users' requests. Lembrazza needs to request it themselves. Max Semenik (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung -- if Lembrazza is not here to build the encylopedia, how do you explain the two year, 655 mainspace edit history [1] edit history, and what's with blanking the talk page? [2]. NE Ent 00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's last three edits are clearly not the behaviour of someone wanting to pursue a normal editing activity. Perhaps the account has been compromised, but I doubt it. We do not aacceptcpt proxy requests fo unblocking. If Lembrazza is serious about wishing to return, they are more than welcome to make their own unblock request with a compelling argument. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lembrazza, "not here to build an encyclopedia" was obviously incorrect (I've changed the rationale to make it clear that you are here to build an encyclopedia), but I don't want to make light of the problem here either. Surely you know you can't go around trying to blank a CFD discussion, or say what you said to Soetermans just because you disagree about categorization. I assume you lost your temper - which can happen to the best of us - because things don't seem to be going your way in this topic area (I note that a lot of your November edits are reverts of various other editors, and that a lot of your other edits are getting reverted by other people).

So, regarding the block: If you'll agree not to resort to that kind of attack again, I'll unblock. A case could have been made for a 1-3 day block instead, but it's not completely unreasonable to ask you to agree to that first, so I'll defer to the indef block, rather than get in a fight with Kudpung about the duration. Blanking your talk page was pointless and unnecessary and kind of a "look how powerful I am" move, so I'll add that back now. Oh, nevermind, I see someone already had.

Regarding the disagreements about categorization: it's a collaborative project, so sometimes we (all of us) have to say "you know what? I've lost that arguement. Time to move on". Things aren't going to improve if all you end up doing when you come back is fight with people. Discuss it productively somewhere if you want, but don't keep fighting about it. Also, Soetermans has been here a long time, so it's probably better to discuss things with him and get his opinion than it is to try to explain how Wikipedia works to him.

So maybe you're sick of this place and have moved on, or maybe when you've had time away you'd like to come back. Whatever you decide, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lembazza, just dropping you a note to say that I agree WALL-E is a an animated adventure with romantic overtones and a sci-fi theme (whereas by contrast Space Jam is a "comedy").

Of course, just because two people who know WP:THETRUTH agree, is not enough. On wikipedia you need WP:SOURCES to WP:PROVEIT.

Not just any website will do -- has to be something wiki-reliable, which passes the wiki-rules. With movies, for instance, you would want a source like Roger Ebert. Here we go:

Roger Ebert (June 26, 2008). "Review: Wall-E (2008)". RogerEbert.com. Ebert Digital LLC. ...[in the genre textfield] Adventure, Animation, Family... [body prose] ... three things at once: an enthralling animated film, a visual wonderment and a decent science-fiction story. ... told in a different style and with a realistic look could have been a great science-fiction film. For that matter, maybe it is.

Thus, we can say with a straight face (in wikipedia's voice) that WALL-E is in fact a family-oriented animated adventure film, a tale of science-fiction. It is not, in short, a comedy (nor a "comedy"). Reading further and deeper, this is no accident: Ebert never mentions humour/humor, laughs/laughing, jokes/joking, funny/amusing, or comedy/"comedy" ... anywhere in the review. He talks about many other things, but never strays from his basic stance that WALL-E is a sci-fi adventure film with romantic undercurrents.

Now of course, there *are* other WP:SOURCES out there, which *do* say the WALL-E is a comedy, flat out. The movie is pretty humourous, so you can see where these other sources got it wrong. But the question for wikipedia, is not which sources got it right, and which got it wrong -- wikipedia should simply reflect what the sources say. And in this case, some sources say animated adventure, and some say animated comedy. The correct outcome is for the article to explain to the readership that, according to Roger Ebert the film is an adventure with a sci-fi story,(ref#1) but according to SomeOtherSource the film is a comedy with a sci-fi story.(ref#2) Make sense?

Technologically, there are some limits on how categories work on-wiki, so it is not always possible to make them nuanced, and in particular, films which are in more than one category ("intersecting") are very hard to get right, and cause a lot of drama and reverting. WALL-E is a funny movie, so maybe it belongs in the comedy-category, but it is also undeniably an adventure movie, so it certainly belongs in the adventure-category, and because categories are a weak-spot in our server programming this is not always possible to accomplish (cf Category:list of $nationalityGoseHere $ethnicityGoeshere $genderGoesHere $historicalEraGoesHere $genreGoesHere novelists ... which is a HUGE problem nowadays because people are over-categorizing like crazy).

Sometimes one source is not enough, to convince the other wikipedians. Holler at them? Nah, just get more sources.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Adventure. Epic. Saga. Romance? Well, maybe the sources are contradictory, and this film is many things. It will take some time before wikipedia gets this right, because it is complicated. But eventually, the goal is for wikipedia to get it right. So take the time to get it right, but do it right, nicely not screamy.

In any case, you seem to be a sensible wikipedian, with some good ideas, so I hope you'll consider sticking around. p.s. Of course, your block by Kudpung was not really incorrect: you have been warned a few times, and you were not listening to the warnings. "Indef" means simply, until you are willing to listen. The specific generic rational of 'not here' was obviously wrong, Kudpung probably meant 'not here AT THE MOMENT' but we have a specific wiki-jargon for that, which is to block for 'general disruptiveness'. Deleting stuff in anger, namecalling, that stuff... not wiki-kosher.

If you wanna be a wikipedian, you gotta be polite. To everyone, at all times, even when (especially when) they are NOT being very civil to you. It is easy once you get the hang of it. Just stick to commenting on the sources and the contents of the articles, never complaining about other contributors, never attacking them, never name-calling. Floq will be happy to unblock you, if you can show him you DO understand that going forward, you cannot fucking call people fucking names no more, because it ain't very fucking nice. :-) Wikipedia *is* not censored, but you have to make your arguments without being disruptive.

And sometimes, as Floq says, you run into a situation where you are probably right, but the argument goes against you anyways, because there are not enough sources, or because the sources are contradictory, or whatever. Remember though, there is WP:NORUSH to get wikipedia fixed today this instant -- sooner or later, the article on WALL-E, which currently wrongly says "comedy film" right at the top , *will* be corrected. Maybe then good old Roger Ebert will stop spinning in his grave. But the improvement has to be done politely, with the sources in hand, not angrily in the heat of an argument with fighting-words. See also, Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly and carry a big WP:SOURCE. Good luck, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lembrazza. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]