This is an archive of past discussions with User:The1337gamer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I´m Psychedelic2004 and i would like to ask you, why you said that Snowdrop (game engine) is "not independently notable" engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychedelic2004 (talk • contribs)
@Psychedelic2004: Because reliable sources only cover the game engine when discussing Tom Clancy's The Division, which is the only game to use this engine. This information should just merged into the development section of The Divison article. I don't see any reason to split off a separate article yet. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Request for opinion
Sir, can I request your opinion on the discussion "Timeline of computer security hacker history" which is located on my talk page?
Please leave your opinion/comments on my talk page instead of here if you have one.
Mdikici4001 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@IDV: To be honest, I'm probably not the best person to review them as I don't really know anything about those series. I only tend to review or read entire articles on stuff that I'm familiar with or interested in. I've also got a backlog of stuff to work on at the moment. Sorry. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe "The Twisted Ones" should have an individual page.
It seems you redirected the "Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones" page for the following reason:
Random user post on reddit is not a reliable source. Fails WP:NBOOKS. Cover it in the series article and split out if and when it becomes independently notable.
First of all, the source was not the post on reddit. It was the comment that the creator of the book made, confirming its legitimacy.
@WackyWikiWoo: You can restore it when it meets WP:NBOOK. If it gets restored and I don't think it meets the notability criteria for books then I'll nominate it for deletion. I would suggest writing a section in the FNAF series article for now.--The1337gamer (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@WackyWikiWoo:WP:BKCRIT explains this. Reliable sources need to discuss the significance of the book. Reviews from professional critics and stuff like that. Most novels based on video game series are not notable enough to have separate articles because they are not subject to independent coverage. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@WackyWikiWoo: It's helpful for confirming the existence of the book. But one source is not enough to establish notability. You need significant coverage from reliable sources. If there aren't enough sources discussing the book independently from the series, then there is no reason to have a separate article. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for this notification. I object to being "templated" as if I was a n00b, but I appreciate the notification; my removal of the talk page post was inadvertent. I did a test, re-created the situation, and wrote a followup at my talk page, so if you want to know how such a revert can be unintentional, there it is. Thanks again. Jeh (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
When will the "Five Nights at Freddy's (series) page be eligible for the "citations needed" tag removal?
I have spent a lot of time adding various citations to the page, and I'm wondering when it will be enough to remove the tag from the page? I want to ask so that an edit war doesn't begin adding and deleting the tag, so when will you be satisfied?
@WackyWikiWoo: You nominated the article for Good article status. If you check the criteria for good articles, you'll see that 2. says "Verifiable with no original research:". This means every statement should be supported by reliable sources. Large parts of the article have no citations which is why I added the refimprove tags. Even with the improvements you've made since, there is still a lot of work to do. Every sentence should be sourced and I still see many paragraphs without citations. I personally think the GA nomination should be withdrawn until sourcing issue is resolved because it will immediately fail with the cleanup banner still there. ---The1337gamer (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The1337gamer, could you give me a guideline on when you think the sourcing issue would be resolved? At least one reference for each paragraph? I can't improve it if I don't know what needs work. I've removed the GA nomination for now, but I think this article could potentially be one if we resolve whatever problems you think it has. I am in no way saying that you are wrong, but please let me know what I can do. Thanks, WackyWikiWoo (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@WackyWikiWoo: Read WP:V, it is Wikipedia policy. Articles should not contain unsourced information. A reader should be able to able to verify all material in an article with reliable sources. Note that not every sentence needs a citations. The lead (opening paragraph) does not require citations as it is meant to summarise information that is already sourced in the following sections. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@WackyWikiWoo: An absolute bare minimum would be one sentence per paragraph - assuming the article uses paragraphs according to the usual rules of English expository text, with each paragraph pertaining to at least one claim of fact, having an introductory sentence, discussion, and a concluding sentence. But excluding, as The1337gamer says, paragraphs of the lede. Also, an introductory or concluding graf of a section might be able to rely on the references elsewhere in the section. But the general rule of "every claim of fact should be referenced" still applies.
Yes, many Wikipedia articles fail to meet this standard. But a lot of Wikipedia was written before the WP:V and WP:RS policies were paid as much "drastic" attention as they are now. And that is one reason that Wikipedia has a reputation as "not reliable." Referencing to this standard does make for a lot of work, but the satisfaction of finishing a really solidly-referenced article (and, in many cases, having really carefully examined what you think you know and finding out whether it's backed up by solid references) is correspondingly large. It is admitted that a) this does make it harder to write articles, and b) Wikipedia is less attractive to editors as a result, and c) some topics just can't be covered here at all, if references can't be found for their key claims of fact. Oh well. We don't want Wikipedia to be easy to write for. Not any more. Jeh (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The1337gamer, it took a while, but I think I've added enough citations to have the alert tag removed. Please tell me this is enough. If not, which sections could be improved? This article has a lot of "good article" (maybe even featured article) potential, and I just want to get that alert tag out to have a better chance. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Colin McRae Rally (2013 video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Niwi3 -- Niwi3 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Scud Race without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Dan Koehl (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello there. First of all I want to clear that i am not a troll or anything like that. I just want to add information on pages that are missing (like every editor do on this website). I am not saying i am an editor i would say i am a volunteer. Now concerning an edit that i did on a page called "Junichi Masuda" you deleted it 2 times saying that is not relevant. You see, the "digital audio workstation" that i added may not be an instrument but its a tool that can be used to make music. And Masuda uses it to do so. Now if i did this edit wrong and must be added to a another section of the page please tell me. Thank you :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDim (talk • contribs)
@BigDim: I did not delete the edit saying it was not relevant. If you read my edit summary it says "not an instrument". It should be pretty obvious that only instruments should be listed under the instruments parameter, hence why I removed it. I'll also point out that what you added was not reliably sourced and information on Wikipedia should be verifiable by reliable sources (WP:V, WP:RS). If you want to add it elsewhere in the article with a reliable source supporting the addition, then go ahead. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@BigDim: I don't know. Maybe in the Career or Influences and style section. It depends on what you want to say. What is the exact sentence you want to add? --The1337gamer (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@BigDim: I guess. Although it might seem a little trivial to just write "He uses a digital audio workstation." Try to write a bit more about the production and processes he uses to create music in his games. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
About Leadwerks (game engine) page
Thank you for alerting me to a possible COI with my contributions to the page above. A few years ago a page existed for this topic that was very badly written, and I had a hands-off approach to it. The old page was eventually deleted due to being incomplete, poor grammar, and outdated information. I authored a new page with plenty of third-party citations that lays out the history and description of the subject in an objective manner, without being promotional in tone. I think this serves as a solid basis for the community to continue editing. Josh Klint (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Looking at the article I do not necessarily agree with your assessment concerning its notability. While I do not edit frequently within this area of the encyclopedia (and could not find a subject specific portion of the notability policy) after doing a few minutes of digging I founda numberofsources which either focus directly on the character or mention it in a non-trivial fashion. The current state of the article and its sourcing generally does not reflect upon its notability, rather if the information exists or not. From those, the sources already in the article, and other sources I stumbled across, the article appears to pass the general notability guidelines as some sources make non-trivial mentions and others focus on this character directly. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mifter: None of those sources you've listed focus directly on the character. Read them. They don't discuss the design and development of the character, how the character has been received, the real world significance of the character. They cover the game's additional content that is centred around the character. That sort of coverage falls directly under the scope of game article (Final Fantasy XV), not a character article. WP:WAF exists to deter the creation of fictional characters or elements that are not independently notable from their work. Furthermore, there is already an existing article that covers the major characters in this game (Characters of Final Fantasy XV). I'm not seeing any reasons for why this character should be split out into a separate article. They have not been subject to significant coverage independent of the rest of the cast. The article should be merged with ensemble article. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I did read the links and while I still believe this article meets the GNG overall if your project has some other norm or standard for notability I'm not overly concerned as long as its evenly utilized (the main reason for my concern was that that article is up for DYK and we check for relevant maintenance tags and the article appeared to meet the GNG relatively easily). In regards to WP:WAF, that comes across to me as more of how to write about fiction, not if the fiction meets our notability guidelines. I would recommend talking to some of your colleagues and perhaps considering some field specific notability guidelines, rules of thumb, etc. and putting them someplace visible to make it clear what our policy is to help avoid future confusion or editors spending time expanding articles on characters that may not independently need their own article. Mifter (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
For the last time, please stop removing his filmography. Please explain it!, your "NOT" giving out your reason ever time you keep removing it, what your doing is vandalism. I've already reported you, this needs to stop! Please! 174.192.32.199 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've explained the revert on the talk page of every IP editor that has restored it each time. Per WP:V information on Wikipedia should be verifiable by reliable sources. Keep restoring unsourced information and it will get protected again. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Not true at all. IP editors have been adding false information to the article for months. I first requested the page to protected to prevent that and an admin refused because the filmography list was unsourced. The admin removed the unsourced filmography in this edit: [1]. It was then protected when IP editors kept re-adding unsourced information. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Where to click to report this The1337Gamer. He keeps on vandalizing my Jason Brody article. Will you please justify if theres really something wrong on my article?
Hi The1337gamer, I noticed that your talk page was semi protected, and wanted to let you know that per the relevant section of protection policy you should create a talk subpage and link to it from the top of this page conspicuously so that non-autoconfirmed and anonymous editors are still able to get in touch with you while this page is protected. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey hey! Just wanted to say the Five Nights at Freddy article looks like a million bucks. I see the issues you had with sources before have been cleaned up nicely. I don't think I have time to review it for a GA, but it looks a lot better than it once was. Just wanted to say Great work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Halo Wars 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prinsgezinde -- Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: I don't follow Sonic games or their mod scene too closely. Most of the Sonic articles are on my watchlist because they are common targets of vandalism. Because of that, I'm not certain on the topic's notability or potential for a substantial independent article. I'd follow Ferret's advice and start working on a draft first. Then it's easier to get feedback and improvements from other editors and it's not at risk of getting deleted. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Cattle And Crops
Hey,
Added my response to Cattle and Crops, the page will be updated accordingly to the policies with added more information soon with references and sources to where the information is coming from. It isn't meant to be an advertising page for the game but to be added onto Wikipedia as it's a new farming simulator game coming out soon. It also is my first time creating and editing a page here and I strongly believe it should be kept. And I'm freely open to discussions on how to improve the page and keep it up accordingly. Joe Parkinson (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Installation 01
Hi, please stop removing the development image I have added to the Installation 01 page. It is not a copyright infringement as it was provided to me by the development team for use with this wiki page. Please inform me as to how I can make this clear to whoever it needs be made clear to, as it is up for "speedy deletion" already. The game is within Microsoft's content usage policy and uses NO assets owned by Microsoft - all were built from the ground up by the development team.
"We operate very carefully under Microsoft's Game Content Usage Rules. All of Installation 01's assets are either created from scratch or obtained through the Unity Asset Store. This means we'll have no issues distributing the game and its files upon release."
@ItTakesTime: It's copyrighted derivative work that attempts to reproduce assets from the Halo series. Microsoft's content license does not permit work based on the Halo series to be distributed under the Creative Commons License. It's not free, so it should not be on Commons without Microsoft's permission. So stop restoring it. It should be uploaded as a non-free media.--The1337gamer (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: Okay, I see, I'll stop restoring it until this is cleared up - with that made clear, is there any way to upload this imagery that does not fall foul of copyright issues? As I've attempted to clarify above, all of the content in the game is created from the ground up by the development team in line with Microsoft's content usage policy, or utilises free resources from the Unity Asset store. How would I go about uploading this without it being flagged? Furthermore, I'm a little confused by "non-free" - the entire game is free and being developed at no cost/profit due to the same content usage policy, so all content falls under "free" media, surely? ItTakesTime (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@ItTakesTime: It's falls foul of copyright issues because you uploaded the screenshot to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons License 4.0. The Creative Common License 4.0 lets anyone "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions. Installation 01 and its screenshots have copyright restrictions, which are Microsoft's content usage policy. Microsoft's content usage policy does not allow you to distribute content commercially or under CC BY 4.0. Images that have copyright restriction should be uploaded as non-free media: Wikipedia:Non-free content. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: I have just noticed you've removed the section on the soundtrack and music for Installation 01. Whilst I appreciate it may seem unsourced to you, a brief check of their website demonstrates the validity and authenticity of all of my additions. Both individuals are working on the game, as confirmed by themselves and TheChunkierBean, one of the lead developers on the project. Will it be allowed for me to re-add this section, with somewhat better referencing? Thank you. ItTakesTime (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Source 2 page
I like that we are collaborating on the Source 2 wiki page, but why did you move my article from "Source 2 (game engine)" page to "Source 2" page I think it fits. I think it fits with the Source 1 page. Thanks for the help though. --Picaxe01 2:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Picaxe01: The "(game engine)" part isn't needed because there is nothing else called Source 2 so there is nothing to confuse it with. If there was something else called Source 2, then we would add "game engine". There are many different things called Source, that's why we add "game engine" to the end of that one. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
He even vandalized my goddamn infantile article Jason Brody. Lets report this dickhead if you will by leaving me a message on the talk page. TravisGTAGamer (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Wispfire's Herald
Why did you remove the Brash Games source? Why did you say it's "unreliable source"? Brash Games has a website and everything. I also provided a link to it to people can see it's a real article and even Wispire has posted about the article on their Twitter and Facebook. 68.11.91.158 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Websites on Metacritic aren't automatically considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own criteria for reliable sources. If you're ever unsure about a video game website, check WP:VG/RS and if there's no concensus, you can open a discussion on the talk page. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burnout 3: Takedown you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheSandDoctor -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings TheL337gamer I saw that you made some edits on a page I made earlier called Milkmaid of the Milky Way and I was wondering if you knew and didn't mind if you could tell me where to find the blank Infobox code so I can make the box in the corner? I can see how to empty out other ones on other pages, but would rather just have an original to use on other pages to. If you do not know where it is that is fine, I will try the village pump thing I have seen before. Thank you very much! Yosshi! (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aunva6: The problem is the number of unsourced sentences, not the number of sources being used. I'm not going to add a Citation needed tag on every single one when there are so many. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
nto every sentence need be sourced by itself. largely, the sources apply to a few sentences, or paragraphs. i'll concede the reception needing expansion though -- Aunva6talk - contribs21:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aunva6: All information should be sourced per WP:V. Not every sentence needs a citation if there is one succeeding a following sentence/paragraph. But I see many statements without any sources at all, hence why I placed the tag. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Geesi (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: List of Nintendo Switch games using Miis
Well, to tell you the truth... uh that was my idea to make that article. The reason is some games may used Mii characters in depends on the games. --Rod14 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Metacritic
If you read my edit summary before clicking undo (or researched what Metacritic is, for that matter), you would know that it's not a user score website. Next time, please do your research. Thank you. DarkKnight214920:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: 1. Your edit is unsourced. 2. I read your edit summary and you're totally wrong, hence why I reverted your edit. 3. Try reading the Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:SPS, WP:VG/USERREVIEW). We don't include user scores or user reviews on articles. That includes aggregate user scores that Metacritic publishes based user reviews posted to their website. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
1) It isn't "my edit"; I reverted you because of the faulty reasoning of the revert. 2) I am well aware of the guidelines. In fact, WP:VG/USERREVIEW states: "When a reception introduction is disputed, a common compromise is to use Metacritic's qualitative summary." 3) Again, do your research. Metacritic doesn't aggregate user reviews, it aggregates critical reviews. As per the website, "Metacritic aggregates music, game, tv, and movie reviews from the leading critics". Don't jump to conclusions. DarkKnight214920:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: You are wrong. Have you actually bothered to read the edit you restored? Let me quote what you added back onto the article: As of May 28th 2017, Friday the 13th holds a user score of 6.1 out of 10 based on 41 reviews on review aggregator site Metacritic, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Do you see the part I bolded? What does it say? It says user score. Here are the Metacritic pages for the game: [2], [3], [4]. What do you see? There are no critic scores available yet. There are user scores available, which are based on self-published user reviews posted to Metacritic. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Like Rotten Tomatoes, the site is primary a critical aggregator. There is a separate user score, but that's not the site's primary purpose. The IP user that added the score made the mistake of adding the user score over the critical score. I just took a look at the site, and the critical score isn't even up yet. So I owe you a partial apology, as I assumed they used the critical score. Because the reverts stated that it was a user generated site, I assumed that you were simply removing it because you misunderstood the site's purpose. But yes, we need to wait for the critical scores before re-adding the information into the article.
However, in the future, please don't templates in that manner against regular users. This essay is correct that it can easily be misinterpreted as an uncivil jab, even if that wasn't your intention. DarkKnight214920:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: You restored content that was unsourced and shouldn't have been there even if it was sourced. You didn't bother checking the content you restored. You tried to lecture someone who has spent over 5 years working on video games articles by telling them do their research on a website which they are vastly more knowledgeable of than you are. Your attitude was argumentative and you tried to claim i was being disruptive and uncivil when i appropriately explained what was wrong. Good job demonstrating your incompetance. If you are going to be so willfully ignorant then my warning was completely valid. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
And this is the incivility I was talking about. Most of this is what you have already been told, but I guess I'll retread it one more time - you didn't cite "unsourced material" as the reason for removal, especially given that there was already an "Unreferenced section" template. You tried to argue that Metacritic was largely a user generated site (attempting to use guidelines to emphasize this incorrect point), and attempted to claim that I was wrong when I pointed out otherwise. Any miscommunication on that front originates from your poor choice of arguments. As for the edit itself, I did take a look at it and it said "As of May 28th 2017, Friday the 13th holds a user score of 6.1 out of 10 based on 41 reviews on review aggregator site Metacritic, indicating mixed or average reviews." Excuse me for missing a single word in an entire sentence that is formally written as if it was pulled from the actual critical reviews. And finally, this didn't get argumentative until you, quite rudely, placed a templated "unsourced" message on my Talk Page, even though a lack of citations in a templated section was not the given concern. DarkKnight214921:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: I did not argue Metacritic was a user-generated website. I have cited Metacritic on hundreds of video game articles before. My edit summary said We don't include user scores, read WP:VG/USERREVIEW). That does not in any way imply Metacritic is a user-generated site. It states clearly that we do not include user scores on articles, which is exactly what you added. UltraDark's revert linked to WP:USERG, not mine. So you're wrong, yet again. Stop trying to frame this is as though I'm a moron to cover your own mistakes. If you paid any attention at all, checked your own edits and read my edit summary and explanation correctly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead you're picking a fight you can't win. Pathetic behaviour. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
"Stop trying to frame this is as though I'm a moron to cover your own mistakes." - What?! Don't ping me again please. I'm officially done here. DarkKnight214923:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Really?
Are we really at the point where you are usingtemplates in a disruptive manner, instead of discussing the matter? Because you know fully aware that the lack of citation (though a problem), was not the given concern. I'm also not the user who initially added the information to begin with. I'm going to have to ask you to at civil toward other users, or I will have no choice but to involve an administrator. DarkKnight214920:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: I've explained why I reverted your edit in perfectly civil manner. You're not making any effort to read the relevant policies or guidelines to understand why you are wrong. Stop restoring unsourced and stop restoring content that violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as already explained. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It does not violate any verifiability policies (which I am well familiar with), as you are clear mistaken as to what Metacritic even is. Do research before denying it again, please. Continuing to insist on this can be quite disruptive. DarkKnight214920:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: Read my post in the section above. Have you even checked Metacritic's website. Users can publish their own reviews on their. Metacritic pages list an aggregate critic score and an aggregate user score. We do not cite the user score on Wikipedia article, so stop restoring it. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I hadn't noticed that the IP user hadn't used the critical scores (which aren't up yet) like they were supposed to, instead using the irrelevant user score. From your edit summaries, I thought you were misinterpreting the site as a whole. DarkKnight214920:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Jason Brody (wikipedia
So, you think this article did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines (correct me if I am wrong if it may not be you responsible for this) but I am currently gathering more information. If you think there is something wrong about my article, please reason out on my talk page and I will be fixing it as early as possibe.
You don't get it homie! What my problem is, you use the speedy deletion template for evil purposes and as I told you on my first discussion on your talk page, you must give me some strong reasons why you tagged my article that needs speedy deletion but your reasons are not enough to tag my article that must be deleted. I left my first discussion page I wrote some hours ago because you just tagged my article for a speedy deletion. The picture on Jason Brody was my own work. I paused on that scene on YouTube, took a screenshot of it then cropped it. So I therefore conclude, its my own work. I will leave you alone if you will stop this bullshit, a'ight? I saw many Wikipedians complaining about the same topic on your talk page. SO PLS, STOP STOP STOP STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TravisGTAGamer (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I mean. You stated in your last edit note that "the infobox size isn't fixed to 250px." Yes, I know that, I'm not contesting that. I'm not saying the infobox width is fixed to anything, it that the infobox automatically resizes its width to the image's width. Your version of the image is 315px, which makes the infobox ~315px wide too. We need it to be 250px, which is the normal width for most infoboxes, including The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Splatoon 2, Super Mario Odyssey, in which all images are 250px wide. 315px seems like an arbitrary number to set it at, where as 250px is the notional width for most {{infobox}} templates. – PhilipTerryGraham(talk·contribs·count)11:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: I understand what you mean and you're wrong. The image does not need to be 250 px wide. The infobox's width is determined by text, monitor width, zoom level and user preferences, not the image's width. The infobox resizes the image thumbnail, not itself. It does not get wider because the image is wider. 315px is not arbitrary, 315 × 315 = 99225 px which is less than the 100,000 px recommended at WP:NFCC but still high enough quality for an infobox. The 250px image you uploaded is noticeably worse quality. Also those examples you just give are of images you have reuploaded and reduced without good reason. There are plenty of infobox images with higher width, including the dozens I've uploaded. It does not change the size of the infobox, it just provides a higher quality image. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Massive semi-automated template conversions using AWB
Hi! Not 100% sure, but I believe edits like this -- that don't change the rendered output of a page -- go against WP:AWBRULES ("An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit") and WP:COSMETICBOT.
Is there a discussion with a consensus somewhere that you should convert these template instances without a substantive change? (WP:BOTASSIST "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired") -- intgr[talk]11:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Edits like above will change how the page is rendered based on user preferences. When the image settings are removed and the infobox is allowed to handle (or omit) the width, the user's preference for thumbnail will take over. Users with a smaller thumbnail setting will see the image shrink considerably. Those with a higher thumbnail set (Perhaps for accessibility reasons) will now see it larger. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
1. It does change the rendered output because it removes the forced image display size. Image display size is primarily determined by user preferences and template defaults; unless required it should not be forced. 2. Fixing deprecated syntax is not cosmetic wikitext change or an inconsequential edit. It's not the same as remove or adding white space which does nothing. All those articles were placed in a maintenance category that needs emptying. Close to 200,000 articles sit in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. They need correcting and it is not going to be done manually. The use of a bot was already suggested on the Category talk page and other editors have already made tens of thousands of the same correction using AWB. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. (Delivered 14:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC))
Category:Pages using infobox video game with unknown parameters
I think Category:Pages using infobox video game with unknown parameters is close to populated now. I've been hitting some of them by hand in batches and fixing various things as I go through. Since removing unused parameters doesn't do much (other than improve Preview so no warnings), not sure we can automate cleanup. That said, it's a lot of stuff like parameters misspelled, or old, or just odd broken syntax. I've no problem working through it slowly when I have a moment, if you don't. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I want to remind you that rollback is only to be used to revert obvious vandalism. These instances of rollback use on Civilization (series) are not appropriate ([5], [6], [7]). If you continue to misuse rollback, your account permissions will likely be revoked. I understand that you may have felt that the issue had been settled and that further edits from the other side were disruptive; however, rollback should never be used in an edit war. Just a heads up! Malinaccier (talk)19:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi The1337gamer , I deleted my discussion in FIFA 18 talk page because it contains a rude words , and impolite way of talking . So why u reverted my edit ? TDLWH (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@TDLWH: I don't see any bad language. It is censored out. In general, you shouldn't remove or edit other user's comments unless it is on your own talk page. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I went back to every article on my watch list to remove MobyGames as a reference and instead add it as a external link for readers interested in the game. A common re-edit in my video game wiki articles is to cite IGN.com for the video game's release information and to cite the IGN editor's reception. I understand your concern. Thanks. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
For now, I've been asking AWB to skip an article if no changes are made OR if no alerts are present (alternating between both), but is there a way to disable link checks with the program, even if there's a module for it? Thanks. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you glance over [8]? Been having to reblock this one for disruptive or unsourced edits, has crossed paths on a couple articles Andy has hit too. Just applied a longer block. Related or coincidental? -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: I don't think it's him. Prior to creating accounts, all of Andy's IP edits seem to be from mobile and on 2607:fb90:/* IP range and his IP would change very frequently. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I never mind anyone dePRODing an article if they have addressed the issue(s), that's what PROD is for, but please don't use your edit summary to make it look as if I was in the wrong - I wasn't. And BTW, the article is still a mess. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Your reason for PRODing the article was unsourced non-notable game. I added reliable sources that establish the topic's notability, so I addressed your concern. Therefore, I dePRODed the article. If you still think it isn't notable, then AfD it. I don't have time to rewrite that shitty quality article and I'm not required to. Bare URLs and poor quality writing have no bearing on the topic's notability. Yes, it's still a mess. Just like tens of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia. Not a big deal. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I know our rules and guidelines well enough, thank you; I tag and delete 1,000s of pages. You completely missed the point of my message here so I'll make it again: I never mind anyone dePRODing an article if they have addressed the issue(s), that's what PROD is for, but please don't use your edit summary to make it look as if I was in the wrong - I wasn't.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: My edit summary said Deprod. Seems notable. Removing WP:GAMECRUFT. Adding refs. I explained why I dePRODED and what changes I made to the article. I didn't make implication of you being wrong so I have no idea where you've got that idea from or where you're trying to go with this discussion... --The1337gamer (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not quite true. The full text of your es was; Mobile Suit Gundam: Extreme VS Force (Undid revision 804662337 by Kudpung (talk) Deprod. Seems notable. Removing WP:GAMECRUFT. Adding refs.). In English, that clearly implies that I was wrong. I won't explain again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It wouldn't be trivial if it were about you though, would it. I'm actually rarely offended about anything, admins have to take more offense than you can even begin to image. My point is that other people could take that as a bad faith slur. Knowing how the es are part-autogenerated, your choice of language could have been better. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Couldn't care less if people undo my edits and use the default edit summary. I'm indifferent to what people or auto-generated messages say to me on the internet. I don't interpret insignificant things like "Your edit was reverted" to be an attack or slur. Thanks for wasting my time with this pointless discussion. Feel free to continue replying but I'm off to bed. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Last month, after advice last year from Robert McClenon about not submitting my own bio page, I decided it might encourage a regular Wikipedia article writer if I added my name to the "List of video game designers" with actual references to the credits pages on Moby Games & IMDB and also included several games that I've worked on that are already have articles on Wikipedia. It looks like the edits were reverted by you soon afterwards with the comment "No article, therefore not notable." - I'm asking if you can help me go from no mentions on Wikipedia to something... anything. Thanks!
@Rangleme: That list I removed your name off is for notable video game designers that have a Wikipedia article. If it included any video game designer then it would be indiscriminately long and unmaintainable. Therefore, it has a stricter criteria. I don't usually work on biographies. If you want an article created, try this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests. It's for making requests on creating new video game related articles. Post what sources you have and an editor will decide if the topic is notable enough to create an article. There's quite a large backlog so don't expect a result anytime soon. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Overtagging on Bendy and the Ink Machine
Hello, you added six tags to the article, and many of them are duplicative. Please refrain from adding superfluous tags, as they are unnecessary and disruptive. I assume you acted in good faith, but please be more careful in the future. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ01:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Fifa 11 edit
Yes - I was misled by the link in "Archived from the original on 25 October 2012". Should this link not be deleted; its misleading (at least to me). Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Orenburg1: I think it's fine as is. The original source is archived so it's still useful. Removing the original url will just raise citation errors. I've tagged it as a deadurl though so the archived link will show first in the citation. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Wakeup12: Ideally, we cite information from reliable, secondary sources (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS). We can use primary sources if they have been reputably published. A forum post reply in a user thread is not that and should be avoided. If word count was noteworthy and important, then video game websites would have reported on it and you wouldn't have a problem finding a reliable, secondary source to cite this information. If the best source you can find is a forum post from a dev, then I would argue that this information should not included in the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello The1337gamer. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Petscop, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Substantially different than the previous version and contains reliable sources that weren't previously considered in the deletion discussion. Try AfD again if you think its not notable. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@TonyBallioni and CipherCraft618: Tony, I believe both reliable sources, NYT and Kotaku, were discussed as part of the original September AFD. However, the article is certainly substantially different from the past version. I've tagged for notability, as this article needs more to demonstrate passing WP:GNG, but will leave it to someone else to send to AFD if they feel warranted. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, you are correct, I didn't see the New Yorker discussed, but reading over the discussion again, you are correct, it was. I've struck that part above. The article is still substantially different though. Also, for what its worth, I don't use the CSDH notification as a "warning" as some do. Really just a notification that the person who tagged it might want to take it to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, The1337gamer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
The1337gamer, please accept these holiday wishes :)
I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.
You reversed my change regarding the links in the Infobox. I'm new at this but by reading the page you referred I cant see why double linking would be wrong. The rules say "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.", and I find it easier to just click the name rather than finding other places it might be linked, which is OK in the Infobox according to the rules. Where am I misreading the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.232.55 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
By that, it means a link can be repeated again in the infobox when the link already appears in the main body of the article. It doesn't mean add repeated links in the same infobox, directly below each other. John Romero and Tom Hall are linked in the infobox almost directly above, so they don't need to be repeated again. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
