Your actions have caused me some consternation. You have exhibited that you believe there is some agenda to have the article Electric Brain arbitrarily deleted and that there is some intent to "influence" or sway the outcome. I do not "stalk" users but sometimes perform a cursory check for familiarity. I don't think I have ever had a previous dialog with either editor you mentioned as warning. User:Harizotoh9 has created an abundance of video related game articles. When I see this it is clear the user does a lot of specific work and would likely be all for anything video game related. Lacking any apparent ulterior motive I have no choice but to look at this from the point of view that this user appears to have valid concerns. User:Beemer69 also works in the specific area, both are established editors, and I don't think either has ever been blocked. I strive for fairness and since I am human I can make errors but a goal is to try to "always" assume good faith. My point is that giving a "warning" looks token, and could most definitely backfire.
You have been "around" a pretty good while and there may be some underlying issues I do not see but I would strongly encourage collaboration over conflict as I would not want to see this get ugly over an article. A "request for collaboration" in concert with "warnings" could be comparable to slapping someone then seeking cooperation. This thought causes me to grimace in wonderment as to how this could be considered as possibly a positive. Good faith edits, while sometimes reverted for reason, would likely never result in any editor being sanctioned. That is why they are considered good faith edits.
I am stating this because some editors carry a certain pride in accomplishments and any perceived or real attempts to tarnish this, possibly as a twist in the guise of an attack on the person, can be overlooked but just as easily can result in a very unpleasant outcome. Both editors have a far more extensive editing history than I do and I am sure can "take care of themselves" so my concerns are not directed at them. It is ingrained in our "Five pillars" that Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility and if one steps to close to the edge they can slide down so it would be advisable to examine possible erroneous decisions before any implementation.
Anyway, welcome to AFD. The back log is always long so you can find a lot of things to do just consider a good "rule of thumb" is reflected in a song: Can't we all get along. Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your civil discourse. All I can say is that from my side of things, with the wording used in their edit logs there was motive shown for doing things to increase disruption rather than working to address the weaknesses in the article, examples "These issues still stand. Adding others.", "sourcing issue still not fully addressed, and peacock wording can be added to the discussion as well". Also I noticed a tendency to remove content that was supporting the most reliable sources. Getting trigger happy with tagging on an article headed for deletion just seems unnecessary. At this point I decided to take a defensive outlook on the situation rather than rolling over and letting the deletion approach uncontested. The initial AfD was justified by "Instead, I sent what I felt was the most obvious low hanging fruit, this and GameGO! to AFD, since I felt it was pretty uncontroversial."(sic) which does not seem to me to be a well considered approach to appraising an article for worthiness. As a first AfD, this experience has tainted my opinion of Wikipedia as being "the free encyclopaedia" when there is an obvious bias towards deletion. The process seems more like "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the other way around as it should be. Mattsephton (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: I'm happy to see the article remains, and more than mildly disappointed I had to spend so much time and effort fighting the deletionists who had never edited the article in question, nor had any real knowledge about the specific subject. But thanks for your help. Onwards! Mattsephton (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would still suggest finding better sources as you indicated. This article received a pass ironically from a "confirmed deletionist", that apparently dislikes long discussions more, but can and may be relisted in the future. I do not wish to belong to that type of association but that is a personal choice. I personally would like all articles kept that can at least pass a bare minimum of notability based on sources that also includes consensus. That it "may be notable" is an indication that "sources need to be shown to prove it is". I have weighed in and may not follow "if" there is another listing but if you add more sourcing I am not against looking at it more.
My discussions might have been long-winded but I really do not want any potentially good editor to be disheartened or have a tainted opinion of Wikipedia because of the outcome of an AFD. I have had at least three instances where issues caused me to consider not editing but just recently received what I consider a "great accolade" acknowledging my contributions. Goes to show that you can be patted on the back in one instance and slapped in the face in another. That is Wikipedia.
I admit that the subject is not my forte so expounded on finding better sources to appease those with concerns. Some editors (or admins) may not see it that way or maybe not care. I would think an admin would just pass if they are too busy to get involved but that is their option. It does seem too easy to consider only the !votes and if a longer discussion stays civil, "especially" if it may result in improvements preventing deletion of an article, I see this as a big win. AFD is just a process that is seen by many as necessary to prevent things that might not be encyclopedic from being included. If you look over some of them you may see there are many that fall into that category and there is not really a "bright line" when sources are questioned. I do look for sources and have to also admit that there may be a geographic disadvantage when searching. It is just hard to take a position that "there may be sources out there somewhere" as a reason to keep. It is good to remember that a source can be good for content but not necessarily to advance notability. In this case time may tell that it turned out a stroke of good luck that a "confirmed deletionist" decided on keep. I wish you luck and hope you can overcome any misgivings of the "process" to continue making contributions to Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Brain (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ―SusmuffinTalk06:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Electric Brain Issue 34 (May 1993).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).
I'm going to revert your edits to the Tetris article as the 1984 date was actually fabricated in 2009 by The Tetris Company. I understand they were good faith edits and I encourage you to keep editing Wikipedia. Just writing this to let you know. It's fairly well known in the Tetris community that TTC (The tetris company) fabricated the 1984 date so that they could have throw a Tetris 25th birthday party coincinding with E3 2009 as a marketing stunt. Here are some archives of Tetris co-developer Vadim Gerasimov's website in 1999, where it says tetris was created in 1985, on June 2nd 2009, the first day of E3, where it still says 1985, and on June 18th 2009, after E3, where it suddenly changed to be 1984. There is also an interview with Pajitnov, and a more recent email correspondence with Vadim Gerasimov - one of the other co-creators. Most of the info related to this can be found in a pair of forumthreads.Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the message and WOW! I literally had no idea about that, and thanks so much for bringing it to my attention. What a ridiculous thing for Tetris Company to do. This is the latest in a long line of strange goings on regarding the creation of that and other games from the same group of people. —Flicky1984 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there are a lot of shady things happening with classic video game companies. This one is kind of an open secret at this point. Almost everyone in the Tetris community (Yes, that exists) is aware of this at this point. TTC is also notoriously terrible at making good Tetris games and very litigious, so fan games can't really use the Tetris name. I don't have much time right now but I'd defnitely be interested in hearing some of the other oddities you've noticed. I might hit you up some time. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk privately about other things I've noticed feel free to hit me up on social media my website is gingerbeardman dot com —Flicky1984 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}