User talk:SNAAAAKE!!/Archive4

Image tagging for File:Oddjob 007.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Oddjob 007.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop cutting out the relevant info and original research from good articles. This was the first and final warning. --Slider2k (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lololol --Niemti (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP Blocked

FYI, Sjones notified me of the IP who attacked you on your talk page, and was block evading, and he has been blocked. I'm notifying you since you made the effort to notify Dennis Brown, which probably means you wanted something to be done. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hi. Per previous comments left by others,1 2 could you please leave edit summaries. They are a great help to others and are an adopted convention, especially when making potentially controversial edits such as the removal of images. Please also refer to Talk:Flashback (video game)#Flashback Origins. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Samantha Jo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Safe (film), Wushu and Jiu jitsu

Operation Lentil (Caucasus) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Avars and Laks

Battle of Rumaila (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 24th Infantry Division

Chechen diaspora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Montpelier

Dana Hee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jiu jitsu

Ghost in the Shell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alternate universe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

I see from your Block log[1] that you've been blocked twice. If you want to get blocked again, and for a good deal longer time, you're going about it the right way. Your comment[2] at WP:RSN is completely out of bounds and a personal attack. I see that you posted the identical attack [3] at the WP:RFC examining your editing behavior generally. It is one thing to disagree with another editor on a point of interpretation of policy; it is quite another to call the editor a liar for doing so. Please refactor these attacks; if not, it will be reported to the appropriate forum for administrator action. Fladrif (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I think stalking me continously for nearly a year now and constantly trying to recruit people into his obsessive crusade is "completely out of bounds and a personal attack" (also: it's hardly the first time I've caught him telling such blatant untruths in relation to me, and I'm even actively trying not to read anything he writes - what I'm doing is a complete opposite of his neveredning harrassment, as I'm staying away and trying to ignore him as much as it's possible, and he only rarely manages to troll me into reacting like that). --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove another editor's post on a page other than your own talkpage. Fladrif (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never do this. (Except for an occasional vandalism, that is.) --Niemti (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my post at the RFC. Was this [4] removal of vandalism? Or was it simply inadvertent? I'll assume the latter. Be more careful please. Fladrif (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited from the link that you gave to me ("[5]"). --Niemti (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Warning

Hi Niemti, I've tried to stay out of discussions involving you, but I'm now going to step in in my capacity as an Admin. You do a lot of good work around Wikipedia- despite your odd insistence on only doing the bare minimum necessary, you have gotten a lot of articles to GA. Even with those positives, however, your general attitude and demeanor are beginning to overwhelm your contributions. In seemingly the majority of discussions you are involved in, you belittle and insult anyone who disagrees with your positions, regardless of policy. You have a consistent history of ignoring any consensus or rebuke that you don't want to pay attention to. You regularly find yourself in edit wars, seemingly in an attempt to shut down opposition by force rather than discussion. Disputes that you are involved in are now a weekly fixture at the WP:VG talk page- and large groups of committed, hard-working editors now refuse to involve themselves in anything you are a part of, a group that included me until today. There is an active movement to get you topic-banned from all video game-related articles, something which has never happened before as afar as I know in the nearly 7 years I've been here. I don't think the issue is video game articles, however- I think the issue is your attitude.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. While every editor doesn't have to work directly with other editors, they can't work against them or actively disrupt the group as a whole or the project ceases to function. You've demonstrated that you are unwilling or unable to work collaboratively and non-disruptively, and that outweighs any article contributions you make.

As such, I am giving you this warning: stop acting combatively, aggressively, and dismissively, and stop disrupting the project. If you continue, I'm going to start blocking you at each offense- 2 weeks to start with, with every successive block doubling in length. I hope that this will encourage you to act in a non-disruptive manner, and allow you to continue to enjoy writing articles, but I expect that it will in any case stop the disruption. --Pres N 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look: I care about what Jimbo says is such a huge problem he needs my money (he keeps asking me with these ads like all the time to donate because of that), and yet I'm a bad guy there? It's not even about this article (where practically everything was written by me from a scratch and so I'm not "disrupting" myself now), it's more like a principle: let's not waste this bandwidth for no reason at all, if something's not broken let's not "fix" it, isn't it sensible? --Niemti (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even trying to say? Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I said. --Niemti (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does adds about supporting Wikipedia (I think that's what you're talking about?) have to do with you being so disruptive? None of that comment made any sense really. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? --Niemti (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said your original comment in response to PresN makes no sense. When asked for clarification, you said you said exactly what you meant, which is terrible clarification, because it didn't make any sense in the first place. Forget it, though. It doesn't need to make any sense. You've been warned, and I'm sure you understand it, regardless of your confusing response. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation was consfusing and made no sense to me. --Niemti (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think he's referring to his current argument at Talk:Garrett (character), where he says that we shouldn't archive links that aren't dead yet because it costs Wikipedia bandwidth. Niemti: I don't much care about your opinions on archiving. I'm personally more into archiving my references than literally every other editor I've met. What I'm concerned about is what's exemplified in that discussion: In your very first comment, you're already using all caps and claiming that there is no possible counterargument to your position. You're increasingly dismissive in the rest of your comments. When I point out that archiving links means that if the site later goes dead without an archive already made, you're not up a creek, you ignore it. This discussion is just a small example. The real problem is that you do this, or often much more, in almost every single discussion you have on Wikipedia, and it's completely out of hand. --Pres N 19:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was actually asking for actual counterarguments - for a reason for this (and repeatedly so). Everything dies (and that's including Wikipedia), but right now they're all live, so don't need to be fixed, including according to the non-binding Wikipdia essay Wikipedia:Link rot (because there are no bare URLs and the content in these refs is not changing or in any immediate danger of any kind). Also I'm not "disrupting" myself for the reason as I'm practically the sole author of the content in that article (and so I'm not disrupting anyone else, because no one else really works on it).[6] I also created it, without me it wouldn't exist. So no, I think I'm not disrupting myself while working on it. --Niemti (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to avoid throwing out a sea of blue links- I'm assuming you've seen them all already. But seriously, I don't think you could act more like WP:OWN doesn't apply to you unless you threw a fit. --Pres N 19:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What owning? I don't even want to "own" it - but just where are all the other people who edit this article? I've posted the 'expand' template back in July - where are the editors doing this expanding that I requested? Who are those people I'm "disrupting" so? I didn't notice them, but maybe you can point them out. Am I "disrupting" the theoretical work of theoretical people? --Niemti (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, be sarcastically dismissive of the admin threatening to block you, that's a great idea. I didn't claim that you were disrupting the Garret article. The WP:OWN issue is that you seem to believe that no other editor's opinion matters on that article unless they too have been editing that specific article. Your disruption what I listed in my initial warning. This is not about the Garret page. I'm not warning you about a specific page. I don't care about the Garret page. What I care about is that every week, several discussion are posted to the WP:VG talk page asking for outside opinions, and at least once a week you're involved in that discussion, and every single time it's a kickoff for people to complain about you, about your attitude, about how they can't work in any area that you touch because it's such a hassle to discuss even the most minor issue (and archive links on a small character article is a minor, minor issue), and for an increasingly large group of people to ask why on earth you haven't been banned or blocked yet.

I honestly don't want to block you. If I did, I would have done it back in November, when these complaints really started going. I want you to keep editing- you do good work, in areas that are generally left untouched. But I do want you to stop turning every discussion into a fight. I want you to stop talking, even yelling, past people rather than successfully communicating. I want you to actually read what other people write, not just ignore them and repeat what you've already said in a more strident tone. I want you to stop actively making people not want to touch WP:GAN, not want to write character articles, not drop articles they're working on just because you started editing them too. If the price of ending that is you leaving, that's not ideal, but it is, unfortunately, acceptable. --Pres N 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did't even get random people involved in this issue, it was between me and Izno (who was as bent on including archivals as I was not - because it takes two to the tango, and I'd say I was being less disruptive, because it was my work being disrupted there, no?). It's not like I'm plotting wasting anyone's time on purpose, including yours. Also, thanks. --Niemti (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: it was my Wikipedia stalker again, right? --Niemti (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this over, the problem was that I was talking about PresN's warning, and you were still talking about the issue at hand - we were referring to different things. Also, while it may be between you and Izno or whoever else, Admin such as myself are getting tired of cleaning up all the problems that arise due to you you not being able to collaborate or act civil with anyone. Every other day there's a new person at WP:VG asking for assistance with dealing with you, and it usually boils down to you insulting them or bulldozing your way through things instead of discussing first and coming to a joint agreement. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how often this is not-quite-a-new person, called Sjones, making a big issue out of everything that involves me? (I didn't even know you're an admin.) --Niemti (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm not keeping score? He's certainly not the only one though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But certainly often enough. So how about making him stop? Stop obsessing for once, stop blowing things out of propertion, stop wasting people's time? --Niemti (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Right. Well, either you have read and understood what I've warned you about, or you're unable to- trying to deflect the problem to be Sjones following you or not knowing Sergecross is an admin too or that Izno was actually disrupting you does not actually make me forget what we were actually talking about or show any willingness on your part to change. You've been warned, you know what the consequences will be if you continue, other people know about it, so I'll back out of this increasingly obtuse discussion and wait and see. --Pres N 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood. (And I actually didn't know you're an admin too.) --Niemti (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll wrap it up here too. As I've said before, if you don't like what Sjones is doing, take it to RFC/U or ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you guys like it? --Niemti (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will chime in Niemti that I have found backing up resources on large articles to be invaluable...too many sites are dying outright or being merged into one another, or worse simply ditching old pages they feel serve no purpose. Right now three major sites are going to quickly be biting the dust, and they alone could kill a few character articles if those links are webarchived or at least backed up somewhere.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are thse 3 websites? Besides G4 I guess. Also worry not, I remember you saying the sam thing after GameDaily died in 2009. --Niemti (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UGO, 1UP, and Gamespy. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. Also G4. --Niemti (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 2 weeks

(Reinstated the warning I gave earlier for context) - 3 days ago I told you that I would block you if you started picking fights and acting aggressively again- your consistent, repeated lack of civility had pushed you over the line to be blocked before, but I didn't feel right blocking you without warning you first. Today, you called SJones23 a stalker 4 times ([7], [8], [9], [10]) and started an argument at Talk:Jill Valentine/GA2 with FutureTrillionaire, Wizardman, and J Milburn that then spilled over into WT:GAN wherein you were, as usual, dismissive of the opinions of others, condescending ("I hope you learned something new today, and welcome to Wikipedia."), and completely unable to be reasoned with. (For future reference: poor sources may not be in the "quickfail" criteria, but the reviewer was within their rights to just regular-fail the article for that reason. You could have fixed the article with half the effort you put into "being right" on the talk page.) Is this latest example of rudeness worthy of being blocked on it's own? Maybe. But when it's added to the massive heap of incivility over the past weeks/months/years that got your original account banned, it's the trigger that I warned you about 3 days ago.

Blocked for two weeks. Next time is a month; I'll continue to double times if necessary. --Pres N 01:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That he's stalking me constantly without a pause nor end in sight is a long estabilished fact, and yet he only occasionally manages to troll me into getting a rise like that. I wish if there was just a mode "users to ignore". --Niemti (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it basically boils down to this: You were warned about being disruptive, yet continued to do it, and were informed that the way to deal with others was to bring them to places like ANI or RFC/U, and not take casual cheap shots at them, and you ignored that as well. You're the one who ignored advice and proper avenues for dealing with things. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also actually it's totally cool and I ain't even mad, I needed a break anyway. But the "ignore" option might be something Wikipedia would use of. --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ignore option is internal, and we depend on individuals to use their own. That is just part of living in any community, you have to put up with some stuff you don't like. Better to just walk away, go read a book, watch some TV, etc. when someone is getting on your nerves. You really don't want to start building a new block log, all things considered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niemti, if you'll recall - I was the one who unblocked the original "indef" that you had. I pretty much felt it was a "ok - here's your chance, you're on your own now" unblock. I took some heat on that one, and a whole bunch of snide comments (which I chose to ignore). You do some great article work, and even though I don't really do a lot of the "video and gaming" things anymore - I didn't regret my decision to let you have a second chance. I probably would have let this go unnoticed as well, but Dennis often sets a good example, and sometimes I try to follow that. As he says, just ignore the things you can't change. Put your best efforts out there - explain your point of view, and let the community take it from there. On wiki, sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield: If - [you] treat those two impostors just the same; I think you'll find a calmer piece of mind. Best of luck. — Ched : ? 11:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niemti. I think you must be very careful when your wiki-health supply is close to zero. If you want to last longer, you probably should edit less videogames and make less GA nominations. Why bring anything to GA level if there are so many stubs and even subjects not covered by any articles? And speaking about videogames, do not you think that we have way too much of this stuff already? I realize that other subjects could be more controversial, but as long as they are not high profile or at least not edited by many people (you should check edit history and talk page), you are going to be safe.

I quickly looked at one of the discussions. Here is what happens. You think that including these links will be helpful for a reader. Yes, that may be. Others tell that these links are not reliable sources. Yes, they are not reliable sources, although I think that most of them are definitely not the "links to avoid". You have two choices. (1) Do exactly as reviewer said and remove all links that you believe would be helpful for reader. (2) Do not make GA nominations. Such is life. Calling them liers will only make you blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would not tell anything else except that for some reason (may be because of your initial username/hero or because you developed this page - see image), I am thinking about this song... I had an impression that you actually know Russian; Google provides very poor translation. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to speak in videogame lingo to me. I've had Russian classes and I understand it pretty well, but I can't really speak/write on communicative level. YT - it can't even provide any even remotely accurate English subtitles for the videos that are spoken in English to begin with, and also Google's text translate service is semi-broken because of its weird US-centrism for the various absolutely un-American terms (for example: it will translate to "SWAT" instead of both "spetsnaz" and "OMON", and to "FBI" instead of "federals"). --Niemti (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately, you did not follow my advice, although it was a good one. Just to be fair, I also have a piece of advice for myself (to stop editing here forever) and I do not follow it too. This is apparently the case when people can not learn even from their own mistakes... Good luck in real life, whatever you do! My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Fighters XIII GA nom

Are you OK with me reviewing this? I don't know how you felt after that Darkwatch review, but I have another GA nom up there and, in keeping with my practice, I review (at least) one for any one I nominate. I also try to review the one that's gone unreviewed the longest, and at this time it's this one.

I gave it a quick once-over and it looks alright, although obviously I want to do an in-depth review. Since you're blocked, I would be happy to transclude the review subpage here (assuming the blocking admin's OK with it; I can't imagine he wouldn't be). Post your answer here; I'll check back. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about just see you in 2 weeks or so? Because I'm not even going to log in really unil then. Darkwatch was cool and speaking of KOF I've got the original The King of Fighters '94 done previously. --Niemti (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alright; I'll mark it as "reviewing" until then (but, if I find it's a quick pass, I reserve the right to go ahead and do that, which I don't think you'll mind :-))~~. Alright, I see the nom was withdrawn. I'll do another one in the meantime, and when you're back, let me know and I'll do another one of yours. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: New Vegas GA review process

I'm sorry I disappeared from the review process. I'm in school, and finals came around and did a number on me. I'll be updating the page over the next couple of days to implement some of the things we talked about myself. TI. Gracchus (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close RFC/U

You have previously commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti.

As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your block, you won't be able to comment at the RFC/U. I understand, however, that you can comment here on your own talk page. Someone else can then copy or link to that comment on the RFC/U page. Fladrif (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti". Thank you. Please make any statement that you may wish to make in the section below. It will be transcluded to the AN discussion. Sandstein 12:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Niemti

Oh hi. Long story short so I won't be "ranting" (or what not) this time:

So Sjones is wikihounding me constantly for nearly a year now, and his pal Bridies is also obsessed with me to the point of where the great most of his entire activity here on Wikipedia in the 5 months was all about how to rid of me (while I've substantionally adited hundreds of different articles during the same period, over 5,000 in total since March 2012). (Bridies - I don't even know/remember what he was really writing, maybe he wasn't as bad as Sjones, I don't know. He didn't comment here, so it's irrevelant-ish anyway.) That's just not normal. Btw, right now I'm blocked because I referred to this wikihounding by "stalking" (which is just semantics really, apparently they call it "cyberbullying" now outside the Wikipedia).

Now, GAs. Basically what The Devil's Advocate wrote in his comment - and this example of the so-called "additional evidence" (as it was called by Sjones in his wikihounding thread) is indeed a good example of "evidence", as it shows what is actually this "problem" with me - and it's that I actually know (and obey) all the policies, rules and guidelines (including but not limited to everything regarding GAs and their reviewing process), while many reviewers don't know, and even when they're informed about the rules and guidelines (the proper ones, because in this case the reviewer was misinformed by some other apparently uninformed users, strangely including at least 1 admin) they might even flatly and completely refuse to acknowledge and follow them (here, the reviewer's invoking "ignore all rules" instead of admitting the wrong). I'm all for proper reviewing, instead of incorrect/arbitrary, which is why I've opened this thread recently (aftter this very debacle, precisely) because the scale of this problem (various types of bad reviewing) is pretty alarming, and some reviewers' blatant refusal to play by rules after they're being informed about them is just absolutely unacceptable (that's my opinion, at least, but I can't see how could I be any wrong with being right).

--Niemti (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After skipping through through the thread, some comments on comments:

Wizardman - it's the same person who wrote "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria."[11] Well, I'm still convinced he doesn't understand GA criteria (and yes, shouldn't be reviewing, if he does). See the link for evidence ("additional", even).
Sergecross73 - it was this admin who gave the misleading (wrong) advice to the original reviewer from the very same thread.[12]
Cúchullain and your "I honestly couldn't believe that things like Ayane (Dead or Alive), Ibuki (Street Fighter), or Ada Wong were GAs" made me actually smile a bit. To quote someone, "I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria." Also, your statement of "I've only interacted with Niemti at Anita Sarkeesian" was false as I'm pretty sure you couldn't miss my 94 edits (over the course of 3 months) at Morgan Le Fay (where we both are very top contributors and I did a complete and thorough cleanup, from this sorry state), just for one example. I don't know why are you giving false stataments like that, but that's you.
System Shock 2 FA wasn't mine, I just helped it (with 24 edits at around the time of the nom). I don't do FAs.
I'm totally for "a mutual interaction ban with User:Sjones23", in fact I didn't even read anything by him here.

--Niemti (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You commentary on me is very misleading. Someone asked about a group of sources, and all I said was that in general its best to avoid Facebook and Youtube as sources due to frequently having WP:SPS or copyright issues. Note the word usually, -- I wasn't talking about the specific sources. Beyond that, you're just misdirecting the discussions again; even if my comment was hypothetically wrong in every possible interpretation, it still has nothing to do with this AN conversation. I wasn't GA reviewing your work, nor do I GA review anybodies work. Your point is completely unrelated to this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's you anwswer that was "very misleading", as you've linked to policies/guidelines (namely: WP:YOUTUBE, WP:SPS, WP:LINKVIO) that absolutely didn't support your statement at all - I've already addressed it at in detail here (and the ultimate cop-out answer by the reviewer was that he's going to "ignore all rules" and not admit being wrong). And how is this random example (not even picked by me, because I didn't read it) from Sjones' so obsessively collected "additional evidence" being "completely unrelated" now? --Niemti (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But like I said, even if I'm complete wrong, you're cherrypicking; if you look at the big picture, only 2 of the 10 sources in question were related to FB or YT, where as clearly here and here, show that multiple other users found multiple problems with multiple other sources, and your GA noms were rejected on those grounds. The reviewer literally says that in the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your statements on IAR and Sjones comments, I'm not doing a point by point response on every bullet point you made above. I'm just talking about the excerpt you included about me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not any "cherrypicking" - people who don't know policies/rules/criteria/etc, and even just refuse to follow them (not by ignorance but by deliberate choice), want to ban me for actually knowing all that following/applying it. And that's including you. Also, as I've wrote right there 1. all of them were either actually totally correct or easily replacable 2. it's not a quick fail criteria. Which was answered by "ignore all rules", then Wizardman (who als wants to ban me) comes and tell me: "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria" (which is just super ironic at this point). So, anyway, why would you give such a misleading advice like that? Seriously - I never do things like that, so why did you do it? --Niemti (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's where you're confusing issues. I think you deserve a ban because how you treat people so poorly, and refuse to acknowledge it, or try to change at all. You've always got a finger to point at someone else, that they treated you bad first or did something outrageous or something, and there's always another person who you're starting trouble with because of your incivility or OWN issues. You're entirely unwilling or unable to even see the problem, and as an Admin, I can't justify looking the other way when people come to me for help, because you're making no effort to follow these rules.
The GA nom stuff? I support you being topic banned from that for a different reason. Everyone's always complaining your noms don't meet criteria. I don't have much of a problem with that, as I don't care personally about how many you've stuffed rightfully or wrongfully in the queue. I don't do much of that, so it doesn't affect me. But it's always distracting other people from being constructive. That's why I feel you should be topic banned from that; rather than everyone always wasting time debating, I feel like you need a filter, someone else you can consult on whether it meets the criteria, and then they can nominate it for you or something. If someone nominated GA's for you, perhaps there'd be less wasted time debating the merits of the nom. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've just got a finger to point back at people who point a finger at me. And to prove that I'm not at "fault" for being right. But they're at fault for being wrong (and they are, which I proved already and can prove anytime, it's just so easy) - and oh yes, that's they who shouldn't be doing things like such hack-job 'reviews' by following their own arbitrary pseudo-criteria (despite specifically being not allowed to do anything like that) and even pulling "ignore all rules" after being informed/reminded about the real GA process. Or giving incorrect advice to people, for that matter (don't do this). And oh yes, I also just realized it's not a side issue at all. Because it was precisely this wrong advice of yours, pounced on up by the always-vigilant Sjones and uncritically accepted by the reviewer (and then by Wizardman) that inflamed the whole situation and led straight to this situation we're having now. I wonder if you can accept responsibility for that. --Niemti (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous. I gave general advice that only had relevance to 2 of 10 of your sources in question, and the reviewer literally said The Facebook and YouTube sources aren't the only problematic sources. Don't blame me for your sourcing shortcomings, and other people's reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you've encouraged him (and Wizardman too - "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid. How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around?" - now he want to ban me for that). Were there actually any "sourcing shortcomings" is debatable (and it was not discussed with me, at all - he actually came to ask you, not me!), that it had nothing at all to do with abrupt quickfailing is not (as it was an absurdly blatant quickfail abuse, "supported" by "ignore all rules" for the lack of any real arguments). --Niemti (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to them about it, not me. It's simple: Someone posed a question about sources on the VG source noticeboard, and I gave vague advice supported by policy and my experience here at Wikipedia: I feel many people cannot identify copyright violations or self-published sources from Youtube or Facebook, and since I feel so many are unable to do this, I advise them to use other sources, because it's almost always available elsewhere if it is indeed legit information. Its a "play it safe" strategy. That's all I did. I did not comment on your particular sources. I did not review your GA nom. I did not quickfail it, nor did I even read that review or until today. I had no role in any of that minus a vague piece of advice. If you have a problem with what happened, complain to them. Like I already said, I have no desire to defend everyone you complained about in your comments, merely clear my name in it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To sum it up: You refuse to accept responsibility for you wrong advice that confused the reviewer (briefly, in the end he just didn't care and "ignored all rules", by his own admission) and then also Wizardman, and also picked up by Sjones, which led me to being reminded of him (and to my current block for using the term "stalker" instead of saying "wikihounder" like a proper Wikipedia gentleman). Now the still confused (despite being explained, but believed you more) Wizardman wants to ban me, and you want to ban me too. Bravo, well played. --Niemti (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:EL basically says what Sergecross says, that's not "wrong advice" (and the reasoning above is exactly why editors are cautioned against YT/FB links due to the inability to judge the proper copyright owner). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"EL" stands for "external links", it was references, apples and oranges (but anyway YouTube and Facebook actually have even their own templates for adding them to external links). --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, the advice isn't wrong, and they're people, not machines; they have the ability to think for themselves and make their own decisions. I didn't make anyone do anything. So, taking that into consideration, yeah, I guess I do refuse to accept responsibility. And even if I hypothetically did, its such a tiny tiny part of the problem. How many noms have you done? 10? 20? 100? And you're hung up on one tiny vague bit of advice that may have influenced one single nom? Its such an insigificant part of this massive problem. Enough of this; this is you just misdirecting the discussion again, moving people away from the real issues. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you must have a very peculiar definition of a good advice, especially since one of these 3 links that you "just tossed around" (to paraphrase the esteemed GA expert Wizardman) didn't even mention neither YT not FB at all (precisely, your Wikipedia:LINKVIO, or even the entire Wikipedia:Copyrights where it actually links to for that matter) and another (WP:YOUTUBE) wasn't even about sources/references, also at all, and you failed to properly explain anything. And you still don't understand how this AN thread here is an extension of this very GAN (Wizardman and his "How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around?", Sjones stirring things up again - and being called, oh-no, a "stalker", it's all directly connected)? But come on, ban me and carry on superbly advising people. EOT because everything about that was said already. --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, I did "talk to them about it". Including here, right away. (Oh, and estabilished QF criteria were then deleted altogether, on the very same day, only to be replaced by the super vague "a long way" - how long is "long" so it's not "all other cases"?) --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, in fact I hadn't noticed your work at Morgan le Fay, which I haven't done much work on in several years, and we certainly haven't interacted there. At any rate it's just misdirection; as far as I remember, other than the Anita Sarkeesian debacle I've never dealt with you at any of the articles or forums that concern us here. However, the briefest of looks into your other contributions shows that you've displayed the same serious issues that got you banned from that topic in many other areas. Your intransigence in forcing through your low standards and personal interpretations of the Good Article procedures, rather than collaborating with others to create actual, well, good articles, is one of those problems.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not displaying any "intransigence" in "forcing through" my "low standards" (these standards are neither "low" nor "mine", because they're standard and I never took any part in setting them) and what I'm doing is actually strongly opposing any and all "personal interpretations" (like here: [13]). Now go and read: Wikipedia:Good article criteria (recently changed substantionally on March 17, so read also the previous version), Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (recently changed substantionally on March 19, ditto) and possibly also Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and then you'll know too. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or in case of tldr: read just Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Imposing your personal criteria about what "personal interpretations" (here called "personal criteria", and located in the section "Mistakes to avoid in reviews") actually are. --Niemti (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some truth to what Niemti says above as there are a few reviewers that set higher standards than the minimum. These generally involve superficial things like reference formatting, irrelevant MOS guidelines and so forth (usually they are quite easy to fix - although they can be time consuming). However most of the criteria are quite subjective and purposely so (prose, broadness, neutrality etc). Nominators should not be nominating them unless they think the article already meets these criteria so it ideally just comes down to the reviewer agreeing or pointing out areas where further work is needed. Many also point at things not in the criteria, but they should be left optional. The best reviews have a back and forth between nominator and reviewer to get the article to a standard both are happy meets the criteria. That is the part that is lacking with you or at the least is ineffectual. At the end of the day having the green spot is not that big a deal, if you are not willing or wanting to listen to feedback then it is probably best to just not nominate the article in the first place. For what its worth, my only confrontation with Niemti was the opposite to what he is accused of here, where they were insisting on a standard for Good articles that I did not think was warranted. AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Niemti's GA's they were of all great detail and did answer some of my more petty and nitpicky issues, all in the sake of preserving and keeping high quality sources and ensuring that no 404 or iffy sites would slip in for someone to challenge the material. Niemti actually overhauled the page and brought it up substantially when I noted a few issues, but I am not sure if they were planned post-nom and prior to my review. I do not like to annoy or challenge other people or make them insecure about things, I used to be more stubborn like Niemti about 'correctness' of an article. The care and thought Niemti puts into Wikipedia should not be discounted because of a defense of that quality. Niemti may not want to backdown or compromise on an issue that is essentially a 'this or that' and when compromise isn't a viable option. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. Stubborn editors or persistent negative editors can and do easily push an otherwise good editor to their limit. It happens. Let's not lose a good editor over minor stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Mortal Kombat II where I did 505 edits (including around about 50 more with additional tweaks after it passed GA), also spin-off Home versions of Mortal Kombat II (after first working on this aspect a lot too, but it was still too big and simply a chore), also the main Mortal Kombat article with 192 edits. (I was actually also working on both of them for a long time on-and-off since 2005 or so but I'm not even counting that.) --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of things "quite subjective", the current (new) "a long way" thing (that I was speaking above already) is waaaay too vague it's just a total carte blanche for QF abuse and so it neededs to be changed. --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its me.

Niemti, what in the world happened when I was on wikibreak? Honestly, I left Wikipedia for awhile because of one user rather then make a huge fight about peanuts. Hopefully, you will have come to see things a bit different after your 'break'. You are a good editor and contributed a great amount of content to the video game section of Wikipedia. My advice would be to update things that no one currently watches like a hawk and if it is popular, make sure its not connected to any people you currently have issues with. Wikipedia is huge and getting bigger everyday. I'll be on more, so drop me a message when you can. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not notice, but some admins on AN express willingness to block you again at the first sign of incivility, edit war or whatever. Here is a couple of ways to avoid it. First, if someone reverted your edit (even about tag), you must start discussion at article talk page, wait for their response and do not revert them back, even if they are wrong, unless you came to an agreement. And if you did not come to agreement, you still should not revert them back. Otherwise, you will be blocked. Second, in case of any content disagreements, you should always use only article talk page, not another user page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. --Niemti (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then two more. If something like that actually happens, it might be a good idea to self-revert. Especially if this is something minor; it would be pity to receive block for something like a couple of symbols or a tag. In more contentious areas I saw people "strategically" placing multiple tags like mines to catch someone. And remember that every single word you are telling to others right now will be evaluated as a potential incivility. I saw a number of comments by others that seemed perfectly all right to me, but admins interpreted them as "unusually terse", "hostile" or a proof of "battleground mentality". Try edit pages where you do not have to talk with others at all, unless this is clearly a friendly conversation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I glanced on this thread, it turned out self-reverting no longer works, and it's the new "Additional Evidence" now. (And so I don't look anymore, because the best way to deal with obvious trolls is to ignore them.) --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean anything specific. Here are the most typical words to always avoid if you want to escape allegations of incivility: "troll", "vandalism" and "lie". But speaking more generally, do not tell anything at all (of negative nature) about any contributors. Comment only on content; never tell something like "you are guilty of making these wrong changes in article". Then you are going to be safer.My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community topic ban

Per this ANI discussion: AN discussion

The community has determined that you are now topic banned from GA articles, with the specific ban phrased as:

Niemti is indefinitely prohibited from participating in the good article nomination and good article reassessment of any article.

This is effective immediately and had no expiration, though you may appeal to Arbcom or to the Community in due course (after the passage of at least six months is customary, or more typically a year).

Additionally, I would like to note to you that there was approaching a consensus to indefinitely community ban you from editing entirely, though it in the end only had about 60% support. Though I understand this is a complex situation with many participants, some of whom clearly support your participation, it is clear that a large number of users feel that your participation was a net negative for the encyclopedia. Editors who approach these levels of community support for a complete editing ban usually get banned if they continue the behaviors that got the ban proposal going in the first place.

I would like to urge that you review how you are participating on Wikipedia, take the criticisms leveled by your critics seriously, and work to avoid such levels of conflict in the future. You've been around for a long time with the prior main and this account. You know how to step back and find a new balance point. For your sake, please take the time to do so.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a closely related note (tying up loose ends to the degree possible) - I am attempting to determine how to properly interpret a number of !votes on the interaction ban proposal for you and Sjones. Some unfortunate ambiguity in how the proposals were phrased crept in.

I understand that both you and he have independently voluntarily taken up something like that proposed interaction ban. Regardless of the final outcome of the community proposal there, I think that you and Sjones staying as far away from each other as possible is an excellent idea going forwards. I have not figured out all the interactions and discussions related to this yet, but I am happy that you appear to have volunteered for this and still be agreeing to it now. Even if it's not a community-imposed ban, the idea of just staying away is constructive at this point.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, too. --Niemti (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got responses from 6 of the 7 editors I was asking for clarification from regarding the interaction ban; the result there is no consensus. No additional open issues remain from this, with the no-consensuses on the user ban and the other topic ban from video games and the failure of the civility parole.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, looking at this from my perspective, the community and the process used to come the near-ban of Niemti is rather sickening. I have serious issues about our many of Wikipedia's processes for dealing with issues of this nature, and they rely on a system that is heavily favored in the accuser rather then the defendant. I'm not talking legal matters, but for dealing with issues, Wikipedia is decidedly a mob mentality and it has caused great pains to itself in pursuit of some false justice. Besides, Wikipedia has shown to be incapable of removing the real threats to its integrity and continues to play whackamole, yet editors with trivial problems in comparison, even if not innocent or clean in their own right, can be hung for it. There is never enough discussion and rational step taking until someone is dealing with a fire, sad, but true when you think about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, every single one of these issues could have been avoided if Niemti could just calm down and treat others like human beings. Equally sickening, if you ask me... Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DayZ (video game)

Just wondering if you could shine some light on the couple of questions I've posted on the talk page? Cheers. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The warsaw gettho uprising addition about Sarenka Rachel Zilberberg was removed by you? This is a cenzroship and you disturbing to our efforts to find maya, her daughther.why?

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blockbuster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto

Hi, I was just wondering if I missed something when you reverted my edits on Makoto (Street Fighter) that removed that one category on her being a fictional martial artist. I just checked the category myself, so is it because it's a container category? I was unaware, so sorry about that. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she's a karateka. --Niemti (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Okinawa

Would it be possible to place an summary on your edits so that other editors may understand why you are making a change? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Psylocke MvC2.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Psylocke MvC2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metal Gear Solid (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Hello, I hope you do not mind me adding List of films featuring diabetes to the "See also" section in Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. I cited the film at the list article, but there has been some debate about the list itself and what belongs on the list. I think that this film's inclusion is fairly clear-cut and that cross-linking is appropriate here. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Thanks. I don't intend to expand so much Wesker's article. I see that source in Dr. Wily's article, and so I thought it could be useful put it in the article. About the OPSM it's a good source, and I found some interesting articles (like this and this) that can help me to create a article for Dr. Nefarious (currently it's a redirect). Just for curiosity: you're Brazilian? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers as robot characters in video games

I only added Transformers to that category if they appeared in video games. I was curious as to why you thick they DO NOT belong in the category "Robot character in video games". DO you think they are not robots? OR that they did not appear in video games? Mathewignash (talk)

Maybe you should sometimes read the descriptions in the categories. --Niemti (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the name of the category be something like "Robot characters originating in video games"? Also, even with that stipulation, there are some Transformers characters whose first appearance is a video game. I started discussion about it on the video game wiki project, please come there and give your opinions there. Mathewignash (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, all of these categories are named this way. --Niemti (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

category on David (A.I. character)

Why this edit to David (A.I. character)? Jason Quinn (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect to a film article. --Niemti (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can see that. Please explain your edit.

WP:Categorizing redirects is not only permitted but also encouraged in certain circumstances, so please explain your reasoning in the edit summary when you de-categorise redirects. – Fayenatic London 18:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's spamming the category for articles, while not even redirecting to a list. --Niemti (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The character seems to be a notable fictional android, so it's not spam. Please read the policy page – categorising redirects is not only for list entries. It would be possible to link the redirect to a section of the article, but I decided not to do so as practically the whole article is about him.

In addition to my request above to use the edit summary, please do not mark such edits as minor, since it is plain that editors who initially categorised the redirect would disagree. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every film (or other media) in existance can spawn one or more redirects this way. It would completely flood the categories, making it impossible to find anything actually useful (actual content). It's stuff for lists, not redirects. --Niemti (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video game characters categories discussions

Just wanted to let you know that I think you're doing a really good job staying calm and civil in the discussions going around about the categories for video game characters- you're disagreeing with other editors (though I think you're correct) but you're doing so without getting angry and uncivil. As long as you keep that up, I'm glad you didn't get banned. --Pres N 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You realize you can talk to me if there is something you think I do not understand. For example, if you think that the formatting of an article should be one way, you could cite an article for example, or you could explain the policy in a polite way. To just revert what I had carefully done with no explanation is not a friendly gesture, especially when I am the one who is shepherding this article through the Good Article nomination process right now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, what article ARE you basing the redesigned headers on? I based mine on Master Chief (Halo), which is a featured character article. Is there a policy page you are referring to? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say, Cortana. But really, Yuffie Kisaragi . --Niemti (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Robot characters in video games

Thanks for commenting on the category name change proposal. I hope you understand that it just seems illogical to have a category called "Robot characters in video games" and then exclude robot characters who appeared in video games from being listed. I just changed the proposal to simply change it to "Category:Video game robots", which I think would solve the problem, since the emphasis would become "video game" characters who are "robots"...Mathewignash (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's gong to make you happy. --Niemti (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston marathon bombers

Instead of deleting, you should've just correct "Chechen language" to "Cyrillic script". --bender235 (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's English Wikipedia, we don't use "Arabic sript" when mentioning some Arab American. --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?

"I have blocked the IP address for severe incivility including anyone operating from it for 24 hours. I shall not block for longer in case it is a public computer system. The underlying accusation of sockpupeteering is more serious, however and will have to be looked at in greater depth."

SERIOUSLY? Also, such a great secret, no one ever knew. --Niemti (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it wasn't quite the intervention that I was looking for. But I guess the stupid "accusation of sockpupeteering" is more important than what ammounts to character assassination on the entire group of people when the world is interested in the issue. Just take a look at this list:

Alu Alkhanov, Russian politician, former president of Russia's Chechen Republic
Arbi Barayev, nicknamed "The Terminator", founder and first leader of the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment
Movsar Barayev, militia leader during the Second Chechen War, who led seizure of Moscow theater that led to deaths of 170 people
Shamil Basayev, militant Islamist and leader of the Chechen rebel movement
Artur Beterbiyev, amateur boxer
Dzhokhar Dudaev, Soviet Air Force general and Chechen leader, first President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
Ruslan Gelayev, commander in the Chechen separatist movement
Akhmad Kadyrov, Chief Mufti of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
Ramzan Kadyrov, Head of the Chechen Republic and a former Chechen rebel
Aslan Maskhadov, leader of the Chechen separatist movement and the third President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
Abdul-Halim Salamovich Sadulayev, fourth President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
Dokka Umarov, Islamist militant in Russia

A few controversial people, all of whom are responsible for the violence in the last 2 decades (not even evaluating them otherwise), plus 1 random sportsman (just one of many notable Chechen martial artists) (and previously, even a non-Chechen Arab militant) - an entirety of "notable Chechens". Yeah. What a nation, right? --Niemti (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SNAAAAKE!! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Severe incivility" was just me writing "I'm bringing it the fucking ANI" to break an edit war (which I did), regarding the above. Also, as someone comes to check it, you can also forward the above to this very thread (I think it's extremely important for this very biased list to not be posted to this article, now when there's a sudden global attention - you can forward it too). Niemti (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is currently no direct block on this account (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's an IP block, I was posting unlogged for a while, as I sometimes do. (I could change the IP now, but that would be socking.) -Niemti (talk)

So use the proper template as you're told to do when you try to edit. And, don't edit while logged out - especially acting in a poor behaviour when you do (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked your IP (your account was never blocked) to allow you to comment on socking enquiry.--File Éireann 12:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niemti.--File Éireann 12:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh geesh

just saw some sort of block thing in my watchlist ... good grief ... what the hell didja do now? — Ched : ? 13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote "I'm bringing it the fucking ANI" while unlogged before logging in to do just this. --Niemti (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video game characters

Hello, Niemti. Can you give a look here? I'm working in some video game characters (as well anime characters) I missed in Wikipedia, and once I know you help to maintain virtually all video game characters (it's easy to proove this seeing the history of them) I came here to ask your opinion and some suggestions, and even your contribution with those "sub-articles". Notice that now I'm focus reception section despite some of them have more than it. What can you say about it? My antecipated thanks. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mongol invasions of Chechnya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

File:Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. 2nd GIG Motoko Kusanagi.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. 2nd GIG Motoko Kusanagi.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to File:Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. 2nd GIG Motoko Kusanagi.png. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not upload new images over old, that changes the fair use rationales and everything. Upload a new image and proceed only after the discussion. It is not proper procedure and it is not the same image as in the informational box. It is from promotional materials and is of questionable copyright status, it is not a screenshot by any means. Concensus is against, and policy seems to be as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Goro MK comic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Goro MK comic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:XCOM logo 2012.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:XCOM logo 2012.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garibaldi

There was a Garibaldi Brigade in the Spanish Civil War, previously the Garibaldi Battalion. As there is an article on that, I've changed the redirect to go there. The XII International took over from the Brigade, which then formed a battalion in it. I've also moved it to Garibaldi Brigade without the s. If an article gets written about similarly named outfits operating in Italy itself, the redirect can be usurped, and a hatnote added for the XII. Until then, I feel it's performing a function. I'm not an expert but a jack of all trades (except American football...), and am always willing to have a discussion over something I've jumped into. Peridon (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garibaldi Brigades (note the prular form): http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Brigate_Garibaldi --Niemti (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Garibaldi (that's another page), but you should not make major edits and mark them as minor ("m").My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was an article on a Chechnya-related subject. Sorry, I did not realize it was a revert of an IP who made edits on a borderline of vandalism. My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting confused here... Peridon (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian ones may be plural, but we don't seem to have them yet. They can be accommodated when they arrive. The Italians in Spain one we do have. As to the minor marking - I have no idea how that happened. I certainly don't regard page moves as minor. I don't often use the minor marking (mostly because I only remember it when I've already hit 'save'...). Peridon (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's so misleading that http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:National_Liberation_Committee is linking there, and people think this article exists (or that it's actually the same unit). --Niemti (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't think so now it's in the singular. It's a red-link in the template, so they shouldn't follow it - and it goes nowhere. The redirect shouldn't have been made in the plural in the first place, as the Spanish unit was just 'Brigade'. If the Italian Brigades appear, we can have a disam instead of the redirect, and a direct link from the template to the Italians' article. Peridon (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At ANI

Your name came up in a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Before ANI. --Lexein (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milana Terloeva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chechen Wars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I "apparently" didn't. --Niemti (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional sorceresses

Category:Fictional sorceresses, 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BIOHAZARD DASH

I've noticed you've been reverting edits related to the removal of information regarding "BIOHAZARD DASH" originally being BIOHAZARD 2. First off, this is completely incorrect. DASH was an idea fielded by Yoshiki Okamoto, general manager of development at CAPCOM at the time, while BIO2 was already in development. The reason Okamoto's idea was never followed up on was because they wanted to focus on the game they were already making. It was never in development. Secondly, the purported source (PlayStation Universe) is almost entirely speculation and hearsay the author hadn't researched. It doesn't cite the source for DASH (a single interview with Okamoto in Genki PlayStation). The basic ideas for DASH were carried over to the Sega Saturn port of the original BIO HAZARD game. This led to confusion within the UK press at the time that led to the Saturn port being labeled "BIOHAZARD DASH" for a while.

DASH was never an "attempt" at creating anything. It was solely a briefly fielded idea (one of many) that was shot down before it became anything more than a concept. No work was done on it, and it has no relation to BIOHAZARD 1.5 or BIOHAZARD 2. Project Umbrella (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what your non-"purported" source? Other than a small jpg image of a supposed cover art of "Genki PlayStation", a magazine that apparently doesn't even exist? --Niemti (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to put purported in quotation marks when it is used correctly. Genki was a typo I was about to correct, it's "Dengeki PlayStation." The particular issue (October 1995) is the only source which mentions DASH anywhere, and it is where PlayStation Universe got most of its information, albeit diluted and skewed. I've been trying to get the issue myself to transcribe the original Japanese like most others, but it has proven elusive. Despite that, a rough translation has existed for years over on SurvivHor. Project Umbrella (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you speak Japanese so well you can't even read a title. Fansites are not reliable sources. (WP:RS) Oh, and this fansite also says "Genki" - here goes any reliability straight out of the window. --Niemti (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I have nothing to do with SurvivHor and did not translate that (hence why I've been looking for it for several years). Considering the owners of the site are French, I think you can afford to give their typo a bit of leeway and perhaps double-check the name of the magazine cover yourself. And while yes, fansites generally are unreliable sources... that's not the case when they actually detail the actual source directly. PlayStation Universe does not cite anything at all, but somehow carries more weight. As for your Japanese quip, sadly I'm afraid that is also incorrect. I've translated quite a lot. For such a prolific editor, you are quick to jump to conclusions with no evidence. I'm disappointed. Oh, and it should also be noted that SurvivHor is the only source for anything related to DASH. Everywhere else (PlayStation Universe included) regurgitated directly from it. So by your own admission DASH apparently doesn't have a reliable source and is yet still in the article because of... nothing. Project Umbrella (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all cool, so find this issue of "Genki PlayStation" and translate it better than "SurvivHor". Or just ask Okamato to write about it on his twitter or whatever. Reliable source - PlayStation Universe (a commercial website with editors and paid contributors), despite your wild guesses about what is their source. Unreliable source - a fan homepage of a random Frenchman who can't even read Japanese and isn't aware of Dengeki PlayStation. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, if you like also WP:TRUTH. --Niemti (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being commercial does not make something reliable. That's ridiculous, and worrying from someone who apparently puts so much effort into article upkeep and factual accuracy. PlayStation Universe did not get their information from CAPCOM, otherwise they would've said and what they DID say wouldn't contradict CAPCOM themselves. They got it from SurvivHor, who got it from an interview with Okamoto in Dengeki that you don't view as a source because of a typo made over ten years ago. Your logic is quite strained. Have you actually done any research on the matter yourself? All you really have to do is Google. The earliest mention of "BIOHAZARD DASH" anywhere on the Internet is... SurvivHor. Unfortunately people weren't as attentive then, because I'd really like to see the original text for myself. In the links you're insistent on showing me, it says the source material must be published and available to the public. I don't see any except from SurvivHor, which at least provides some scans and the name and date of the exact source. PlayStation Universe poorly regurgitates the information on SurvivHor and getting paid is simply not enough for someone to be the Word of God. I have my own issues with SurvivHor, personally. Their "translations" are woefully bad and they never provide the original text. Project Umbrella (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You actually don't know where they got their information, or even what was really in "Genki PlayStation" (which is "elusive"), and it's all just your original research. You see, in Wikipedia it's not allowed. The fanpage would be more reliable if they showed the scan (or at least if they even knew how to read correctly the magazine's very title). You can contact PSU, Dengeki, and/or Okamato to publish "the truth" about it somewhere (even on twitter or facebook), then you can use it. --Niemti (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly I don't even know what your problem about it. --Niemti (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SurvivHor, since 1999, has been the only source of DASH for anyone who hasn't read that particular issue of Dengeki (October 1995), which is already very few people and less as the years have gone by (we're talking a 16-17 year old interview). My problem with the original passage was that it claimed "BIOHAZARD DASH" was intended as the sequel to the first game, when it was only an idea. It never entered development, as initially claimed by the page. The burden of proof is not on me for anything, and in my personal opinion, DASH shouldn't be mentioned at all due to the lack of sources and its general irrelevance to the article. PlayStation Universe doesn't cite anything, but since SurvivHor is literally the only Internet source that mentions DASH, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to deny that PSU did not get their information from the fansite or the various hearsay posts scattered on several forums such as Assembler and Bioflames, few of which are actually consistent. Some say DASH was planned as a Sega Saturn exclusive game and some of its elements were incorporated into the SS port of the first game, others say it would've been the sequel (along with an idea about setting the series in space), others say it would've just been an additional scenario to the first game set "three years later." If PSU had a source, it would've been stated (as the author did so elsewhere, so it's not like lack of citation is his MO) or at least consistent with prior information. The PSU "History Of" articles also have quite a few errors. I'm unconcerned with using SurvivHor as a source, personally I don't like it, but at the same time it's still more reliable than PSU in this particular instance because it actually mentions where the information came from. You can't just take someone's word at face value just because they get paid. Project Umbrella (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, officially tired of seeing this on my watchlist. Project Umbrella, you are wrong. SurvivHor cannot be used as a source. Period. Doesn't matter if it's "true", doesn't matter if it's "the only source" on the internet for this. If it's not an RS, it can't be used as a source, and fansites are not RSs. You can argue that PSU is not an RS (though paid staff and editors means that you'll have a bit of a stretch), but even if it isn't that doesn't make SurvivHor magically a good source. If you can't find an RS like the Dengeki issue itself to contradict PSU, then PSU stands- you can't just infer out of thin air that PSU copied information from SurvivHor without attribution. Please re-read Wikipedia:Verifiability- it doesn't matter how many times you argue about what is "true", what matters is what can be verified with reliable sources. If you can't find an RS to support a claim, then the claim doesn't go in the article. --Pres N 19:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating SurvivHor to be used as a source. I couldn't care less about it, my point is just that's where the DASH stuff originally came from. PSU should not be used as a source just because nothing contradicts it, that is complete nonsensical reasoning. It has to be verified, and PSU itself doesn't do a very good job at that by outright calling itself speculation. I'd rather the Dengeki issue be used as the source, if anything. But even that is on shaky ground because it's a magazine from 1995 that is virtually impossible to track down and what little effort went into documenting it at the time has been very sketchy and contradictory. Essentially, it's all hearsay at the moment, and that includes PSU. I'm just disappointed by the lack of basic research or verification and the complete willingness to lap up anything posted on a website. That said, I've already messaged the author of the piece about where he got his information, which bears striking resemblances to forum posts. Until something concrete is found by actually verifying the Okamoto interview, I'd vote for the removal of any reference to DASH if it's going to rely on a completely baseless source. Being paid is a terribly flimsy excuse for something being accurate or reliable. Project Umbrella (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dengeki, October 1995. I'll see what I can find tonight. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. Dengeki PlayStation was first issued in January 1997. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The date never made much sense to me, as Okamoto was completely opposed to BIOHAZARD in 1995. However, here is the cover to verify the date, and Dengeki PlayStation actually started in December 1994. You're referring to a special edition, Dengeki PlayStation D. Project Umbrella (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I have looked and haven't found the magazine in my collection (I don't have a lot of Dengeki PlayStation, and practically no older ones), and have been unable to find a scan online. This Spanish source looks of possible reliability. That's the best I can do. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that Spanish source is just regurgitation of information from SurvivHor. I don't think any of it is verifiable. Project Umbrella (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish page is a hoah, these pictures are just concept arts for RE Zero. --Niemti (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the PSU article, it's speculation mixed with SurvivHor's synopsis of the interview. Project Umbrella (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I just don't take as gospel an anonymous Frenchman who writes about "Genki PlayStation". --Niemti (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you'll take something that just repeats every single bit of information from that anonymous Frenchman several years later as gospel. Also, picking typos as an excuse for a lack of reliability despite your own grammatical hiccups is a bit of a stretch, and tediously childish. At least they have an excuse in that English is not their first language (and neither is Japanese, for that matter). Project Umbrella (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that, stop pretending you do. --Niemti (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do. All you require is the ability to read. Compare SurvivHor's information (from 1999) to PSU's information (from 2009). It's all the exact same. So either both are right, or both are wrong. Or going by your responses, there's another option that PSU happened to (by complete coincidence) get exactly the same information as a site ten years before... and is more right despite the information being the exact same. Would you like a list to make it easier? Project Umbrella (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how do you know the author didn't actually dig up this issue of "Genki PlayStation", went and asked the magazine (to check in their archive, if not anything more), asked PR people at Capcom, etc? Seriously, get real. You don't. Oh, and iof it's all the same... WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's all the same... why try arguing otherwise and make up (unsubstantiated) excuses to defend a source rather than admit you might be incorrect? You can't verify anything, so your insistence on defending PSU yet disparaging older sources with the exact same information is utterly pointless, that's all I'm saying. Personally, I don't believe anything about DASH at the moment as absolutely none of it makes any sense. Supposedly devised between BH1 and BH2... a year before BH1 was released. Spoken about by Okamoto, who had absolutely nothing to do with BH1's story (which wasn't even finished). No sequel was ever planned for BH1 pre-release, as the potential of a sequel depended entirely on how the game sold (and a sequel was only decided on a month after release). Without the original source (Dengeki PlayStation Vol.7), I don't see why unverified info is allowed. It's all hearsay and there's enough evidence to contradict it (and the sources of it) to make it highly suspect. Nothing personal, of course. Project Umbrella (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But at least thanks to you I just learned about Sengoku Biohazard (but this article is still so bad). --Niemti (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like this, too. Perfect for archive/citation purposes, and it took quite a while to build up (and is still going). Project Umbrella (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Wong

Ada is mentioned on a first-name basis in BH1. My edit was about John Clemens' second name not being in the final version, but being in the demo version. Since you brought it up though, yes, Ada was mentioned by name in the file even in the demo (along with the original eleven Trevor's Notes that were also removed from the final version, and at that stage, "B.O.W." was also originally "B.H.W." - Biohazard Weapon). These changes were enacted by Yasuyuki Saga after the departure of scenario writer Kenichi Iwao in late '95. Her personality and occupation were not planned in the first game, aside from the fact that she was John Clemens' girlfriend. At the beginning of development for the second game (the stage known as "1.5"), an Umbrella researcher named Linda was created. However, she was renamed Ada Wong in order to draw a connection to the first game, with her Chinese surname added since no surname was written for her in the first game and her character design was half-Chinese. The character and her name were kept after 1.5 was scrapped, although her occupation and personality were completely altered. In the final version, she was a spy for Umbrella's rival company who infiltrated the Arklay Laboratory posing as a researcher and became Clemens' girlfriend in order to gain information. There was no retcon involved at any stage since the only changes occurred during production before the plot was complete. The addition of her previously non-existent surname in the second game is not a retcon. Project Umbrella (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to write references, using either the original sources (not fansite retellings or rumors) or reliable English sources. And yes, there was retcon - in RE1 Ada wasn't a spy, originally (and she was a researcher, and she was even still a researcher in the first version of RE2). --Niemti (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No retellings or rumors used and all information is directly from the games (English and Japanese, the latter taking precedence for obvious reasons) alongside direct contact with Kenichi Iwao (BH1 scenario writer), Isao Oishi (BH1/BH2 concept artist and 1.5 writer) and Ryoji Shimogama (BH1/BH2 artist). You also need to double-check your definition of retcon. A retcon is a change in previously established fact. Nothing is established when a game is in production and Ada was not a researcher in BH1 until the sequel said so, as Iwao never had any intention behind her at the time. She was equivalent to "Alma" in this file, nothing more than a girlfriend. Please stop trying to make up for a lack of research by writing off genuine sources that did it all for you simply because they aren't paid to do it. Project Umbrella (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "Ada began as Linda" claim. It's currently unsourced (and tagged). RE Wiki has no references for this too, other than an unsourced image. Did you read Wikipedia:No original research yet? --Niemti (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is named "Linda" (リンダ) in early concept art featured in the CAPCOM Design Works book, but in 1.5 itself, she is named Ada. Citing a download to a game is likely not permissible. In its Japanese script and files, her name is Ada (エイダ). The RE Wiki is also a garbage excuse for a source, I'm disappointed you use it. And please, if you're going to keep throwing around the "no original research" thing, at least start following it when you decide what constitutes a source. Already you seem to have a tendency to go along with absolutely anything despite a crippling lack of evidence beyond "they get paid" or "maybe they did this or that." Project Umbrella (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly okay to cite an artbook. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think otherwise. I did think it was common knowledge by now to anyone that looks (or knows where to look). Project Umbrella (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to be actually useful, Chris Redfield needs a lot of work (Albert Wesker too). Resident Evil (video game) is also only so-so for the game's caliber (just compare with Resident Evil 2 or Resident Evil 4). --Niemti (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see correcting you isn't "useful" enough, haha. Personally unless I see something outright wrong, I couldn't care less about the overall content of the article here. The effort is better spent elsewhere. But I do see quite a few errors, which I'll resolve for you now. Project Umbrella (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No? What a shame. --Niemti (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Wesker's article for you. Actually surprised at how comparatively empty it is. The RE Wiki may be quite a bit of nonsense but it's staggeringly more fleshed out. You'd probably be better off just copy-pasting from there as they did from here in the first place. Not one official source cited, either. Wow. Project Umbrella (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's empty because I didn't work much on it. No, really. I'm practically only user who works on RE characters for years now. In 2012 I brought Ada, Leon, Claire and Tyrant to GA, and Jill I would too, if not the people who just don't understand GA (long story). (Actually I even created Tyrant, Rebecca and Sheva.) --Niemti (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last changes

Could you explain undo my changes in Spetsnaz article? --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spetsnaz GRU this way. --Niemti (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for changing Rikimaru's pic to official artwork and removing the fan art that had been there for years.Razdower (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GITS

A focused and clean discussion of the future of the article is underway, because you made comments on Ghost in the Shell I am notifying you for your input in the debate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kelly Hu may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly was your point here because I do not edit in this area. However, you should never do bickering like that on the ANI. If you think there is a serious problem and want to press some kind of charges, please collect diffs on your user sub-page ("editor X edit war: diff, diff, diff") and let me look at this to check if there is actually any problem. However, if you do that, this is going to backfire because someone will do exactly the same about you. Do not shoot yourself in the leg. My very best wishes (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re to your last comment. You can't fix it. This is happening all over the project. In any subject area where articles are sufficiently developed and there are many contributors, some contributors freeze any further development by reverting to versions they like. This is usually a version most consistent with opinions of a common crowd, rather than with opinions by experts (I think you are an expert in Games). This is the reason I edited very little in Physics. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

You need to relax and remain civil at all times Niemti, I have tried my best to assist in your disputes, but when you respond in a hostile or abrasive way it makes me wonder why I even bother. Wikipedia is not perfect and idealism is one thing, but you shouldn't burn bridges or wage edit wars that will only serve to get you blocked. Even good changes will be reverted if you get blocked. Take your issues to DRN before you edit war, that way if a bunch of editors agree it will not be YOU who gets blocked for edit warring. Besides, by doing it that way other editors will start to think of you in a better light. Besides, I doubt you like fighting over these matters, trust other editors to see it your way and bring it to WP:DRN next time. Because if you edit war again, I will not come to your defense, but I will be at DRN when and if you chose to heed my advice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is any "dispute" to be resolved, I believe the problem is rather how to reinstate all these countless whimsically reverted good edits everywhere in the film/series articles. That's the problem. --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Sagal

Hello. I agree this article probably isn't salvageable, but it's somewhat poor form to neither mention the AfD in the edit summary that added it, nor leave a message on the talk page of article's creator. --McGeddon (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot. --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ivy Valentine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shinobido: Way of the Ninja may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not going to say grabbing all available sources is a bad thing...

...you didn't question the reliability of a source written by someone called "Cherry Liquor"? o_O--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cockneys vs Zombies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the definition of activists and see whether it fits

We use WP:NPOV not WP:ILIKEIT as a standard. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent in video games

Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent in 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. Robofish (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Annica Smedius

Hi, I'm Matty.007. Niemti, thanks for creating Annica Smedius!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Just needs references, then is good to go

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Matty.007 13:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ibuki SFXT.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ibuki SFXT.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annica Smedius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TV4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing pics

How come here you removed the picture of Sunstar the unicorn? She's an important char, I think it is cool to have pictures of major chars, maybe you could add others too? Ranze (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uusually Wikipedia has no illustrations in the lists of characters. --Niemti (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:World War Z film poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:World War Z film poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oliver Wood

Kat Steel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Model

added a link pointing to F-Zero: GP Legend

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"kangkung" (List of characters in Mortal Kombat)

So, this "kangkung" thing was indeed a vandalism? At first I was quite, well, confused when I noticed that you reverted my edit but then I saw that you replaced this "kangkung" thing with Kung Lao. Glad that you solved the problem. --Jovaen (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland 2

No wonder those guys at WP:VG despise you. "Learn to read?" Real friendly. Since GameSpy is down, I get a redirect to its farewell message. Maybe you can explain what "In 2003, inXile, founded by Wasteland's producer, Brian Fargo, acquired the rights to Wasteland from Konami, which held it in relation to the Yu-Gi-Oh! franchise" actually means. --Soetermans. T / C 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Konami copyrighted "Wasteland" in relation to Yu-Gi-Oh! indeed. Also if you see a dead link, learn to post ^{[dead link]}. Also also, besides Internet Archive, you havel also little something called Google. --Niemti (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know Niemti, when this and that went down on WP:VG I used to think that they're exaggerating. But I guess not. In your edit summary you're telling me to "learn to read" and here you're telling me to "learn to post ^{[dead link]}", while it would've been just as easy to change around the wording in the article and not be nasty about it all, or to say "the source states..." in your edit summary, or "you can use this instead..." on your talk page. But apparently my words are lost on you. Goodbye. --Soetermans. T / C 10:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not "the source states", Fargo states. I see even a title like "GameSpy interview with Brian Fargo" can be not clear enough for some, and that's what's actually "odd". --Niemti (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are now edit warring over tags.

So either stop, find the information yourself or go to the talk page and explain why you feel tags need to be added to a developing article. It really is a pointless issue to be edit warring over. I am sure I dont need to explain the consequences of edit warring to an experienced editor such as yourself. As for your suggestion that I suggest the tags be deleted, that in it self is pointless as it has already been discussed in the past and 3 times it was deemed that the page should be deleted. Besides, I am all for tags, when they are needed. Which in an article such as this, they are not. Especially when saying a cast list is incomplete when it quite clearly is as we only name notables who join the cast and not every Tom, Dick and Harry. -- MisterShiney ✉ 10:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the tags so much, go and work on the article, then remove the tags once you're done and the sections are complete enough. Simple enough? --Niemti (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be an asshat. As another editor has pointed out. They are for static articles. Not ones that over the next few weeks are going to undergo massive changes after the film is released. Oh and on a different note, just removing the changes as a main stream edit rather than undoing so that the other editor is not notified - really bad faith and sneaky. -- MisterShiney ✉ 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and for now it can be crap, because there was no offical premiere yet. Also don't be a really bad faith and sneaky hatass, one can't just undo edits with a click after someone else edited it afterwards. --Niemti (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the Asshat comment. Was a little heated this morning and on my way out the door. Still doesnt excuse the behaviour. As for the re-addition of tags, you should still be following WP:BRD regardless. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat

Hey, why did you remove my contribution to this article? It is true that there is also a pirated version of this game as you can see it on YouTube. Bao-Dur (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced random trivia in a GA. --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong

No need to promote links to some individual reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.169.7 (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit psylocke or I will report it

If edit psylocke 1 more time you're not going to be on Wikipedia anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.88.138 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mortal Kombat (2011 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skarlet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ia Drang

Hello Niemti, you may be interested in seeing the latest edits on the Battle of Ia Drang article. It does appear that another person is calling the action a American victory, rather the consensus that the result was "inconclusive". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World War Z

Niemti, I ask you to change your tone in discussions at Talk:World War Z. Other editors are less inclined to listen. I think you have a point about the article lacking mention of Russia, but you need to convey it better. Otherwise it is going to be overlooked in the combativeness between all of you. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop arguing. Focus on content, or take a break. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, can I just ask why you are perfectly happy to find the content yourself and yet wont take it one step further and make the changes yourself? But will instead put a tag in place (which to be fair is purely opinion as who gets to decide when the section is complete?) which comes across as really lazy. Is it a confidence issue? That you are afraid of making mistakes? If so please re[read WP:SOFIXIT. As is explained, if it is really bad then things can always be reverted back. Editing really is nothing to be afraid of. -- MisterShiney ✉ 00:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Well, I'm not certainly. Lately, I have had little time for Wikipedia, but I have not abandoned it. So, I would call it a break. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on

I noticed you reverted by edit on: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=XCOM:_Enemy_Unknown&oldid=561505695&diff=prev

Well its a machine that plays the game, so I thought it would be calling a gaming machine. It looks like this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMGlTgqCEAAy-Hm.jpg:large

I guess it could be called an arcade cabinet, as that's what it is being called on the internet. I'll change it that way. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oz character pages

Was there any dicsusion to merge these pages? Don't we need consensus before such a major move? --Ted87 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were tagged with various tags for many years and didn't get any improvement, and usually didn't get even 1 reference of any kind (thus nothing to merge because it's all original research/unsourced content). --Niemti (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, there should still be a consensus to merge pages. Especially a mass merge like this one. A couple pages did have sources which are tricky to find on character pages since most of the info comes straight from a show. --Ted87 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And which means there's no notability. --Niemti (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this looks like a bunch of socks, you should either make an WP:SPI report or ask an advice from an administrator, rather than be involved in edit war. Best, My very best wishes (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Mystara

Hey, didn't you compliment me on the Garrus Vakarian article a while back? If so: cheers for the thanks. It keeps tireless workers such as myself going.

Anyway, you "made" ('twas a redirect beforehand, at least) the Chronicles of Mystara article, right? Don't know if you've found any sources by your own means, but I found a few and added them to the talk page. If you're still interested in the article, hopefully they should help. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360-only Games

Every single other Xbox 360-only Game apart from Tenchu-Z, are also listed in Xbox 360 games. There are 243 games in the Xbox 360-only section, are you going to edit these all as well ? Darwin-rover (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes. --Niemti (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Hz. tiang 05:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poznań 1956 protests

I think you need to explain better on Talk:Poznań 1956 protests what you mean. It's an external links section, so a bulleted list of links is the correct format. If you mean that some of the links should be removed, then please use the {{external links}} template, or better yet: just remove the ones you think shouldn't be there, as the section is not that long in the first place. Otherwise, I really do not understand what you think needs to be done here. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 09:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, itn't: no names and dates and authors, false titles, dead links. --Niemti (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike references, you don't need names and dates and authors for external links. And if there are dead links, is there some reason you couldn't remove them yourself? —howcheng {chat} 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links are not to be removed, but replaced by an archived version. And of course "I" (readers) need the actual titles, publications, names and dates, so they would know them without a need to click to learn it (or to find a 404 error, for that matter). --Niemti (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you couldn't do this yourself because ...? —howcheng {chat} 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because my Wikipedia paycheck is late. --Niemti (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per WP:EL#What can be done with a dead external link, "Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed." You must be confusing references with external links. —howcheng {chat} 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dead or Alive: Dimensions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Raidou

Dead or Alive (video game) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Raidou

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mason and Hsien-ko

Wow, you've got a greatly amount of material about Heather Mason. I'm not a big fan of SH, and I prefer to work on the "articles" I've started to work on my sandbox, however I'm very happy with the content you brought and I'll appreciate to work on it. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Ginsuloft. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Augustus Hill without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can 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. Thanks! — Ginsuloft (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and welcome to Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Ginsuloft (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vindictus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*{{official|http://vindictus.nexoneu.com/}} (Europe}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ARMA 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

a [[California]] politician and lawyer. Miles was listed as a [[First Sergeant]] in press releases)
that the latest beta patches are available to everyone from the official ''ARMA 2'' website.<ref>[http://www.arma2.com/beta-patch.php</ref> Current development of the beta versions has added, among

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 4

This is getting quite tedious.

1) CUBE magazine is not a reliable source for story information. The actual section was written solely by the editor, it had no input from the development team. The "Hallucination" version of BH4 had no plot. I asked Mr. Kawamura about this directly and he strictly denied it. No information on the story of any BH4 version was ever provided to anyone outside of CAPCOM, let alone a Western magazine, until after the final version was already released. His version (Hallucination) also had very little to do with Sugimura's version (Castle) which actually did have a complete scenario and was the one which featured the girl and dog. Hallucination dropped them and kept only the basic concept of an infected Leon.

2) Chris and Claire played no role in any version of BH4.

3) Sherry Birkin did not appear in any version of BH4.

4) The Progenitor Virus was originally discovered on Mallet Island (the setting of the BH4 version that became Devil May Cry). It was then changed to Africa, its setting during REmake, 0 and 4 (all written at the same time). You can actually see it mentioned in one of 0's files.

I'm the person who interviewed Mr. Kawamura (and also helped with a second interview), making me a tad more informed than most. It's also worrying that you're prepared to use a source that makes some headline grabbing muck rather than going for the direct source of the interview itself, and this isn't the first time. Project Umbrella (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfenstein 3D

Hello,

Apparently you did not understood my intention about correcting the size of the screenshot of Wolfenstein 3D. Not precising a size cause the image to be scaled down and make the image blurry while specifying the exact size make the image crisp and doesn't use that much space. Of course it would be silly to display a 1600px wide image in a Wikipedia article, but showing a 300px wide image instead of 220px (that's the size of the thumbnail) doesn't seems to be a problem. I'll be glad to know your reasons for reverting the minor change.

Best regards,

Lunavorax (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what. Thumb's like 200px always, be it a HD game or not. --Niemti (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Binary Domain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timex

Dead or Alive (series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Leon

Front Mission Evolved (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reboot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx quote box

Hello. I know that we have collaborated on the Jinx article before, but I don't understand why you insist on the quote box in the live action film section. Putting the quote in a box at the beginning of the section is unnecessary, as it sandwiches the text between that and the infobox, plus the quote refers to elements of the plot, before the reader has had a chance to read that paragraph! Moving the quote to the end doesn't take anything away from the article, and actually allows it to flow better. Please understand, I'm not disputing the content that you've added, just the way that is is displayed, and I appreciate your cooperation. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Rain / Soletron article

There was a discussion probably within the last year give or take at WT:VG about the use of articles that called out to video game characters in terms of their sex appeal or similar type of qualities, which you were involved with because you were adding these across the board. That discussion basically said that if all such articles are are a list without little explanation of why the characters are included beyond stuff "she has a nice figure", its not worth including. That Soletron article is exactly the type that simply lists out the characters and does not explain any more than a sentence about their inclusion. They certainly do not help summarize the topic in this case since this is the first time I've ever seen that character in Heavy Rain called out as sexy, so one, barely reliable source's opinion , as little as there is, is not appropriate to include at all.

Further, I remind you that WP:BRD needs to be followed. You should be very well aware there is a large chunk of the Video Games project that are disassitisified with your forcefulness in including material, even if you are otherwise including good edits along the way. Breaking BRD or forcing points will not be seen favorably if they try to take you to ANI. (I'm not doing so just on this edit, but this is the type of evidence they'll use to justify their case). If people revert your additions, find out why, don't assume that you're right. That will get your blocked. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not first, maybe you need to read more, like I need to get get out more. And the list is perfectly fine. --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

as are found in ''[[Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete]]''; there are no battles on the overworl] and no [[random encounter]]s. Also like ''Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete'', the size of most of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Mr. Wint and his partner Mr. Kidd are American assassi]s working for Blofeld. Their assignment is to kill off every link in a Slumber Brothers mobster
sdcc/ |title='Beware The Batman' Producers On The Show's Villains, Themes And Environments [SDCC] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World War Z

you are accused of Vandalism. First warning. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol. --Niemti (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Niemti on this one. Blade, your accusations of zionism in WWZ are WP:FRINGE and do not have sufficient merit to warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Whilst I believe you have done significant research into your fringe theory, I strongly doubt that you have actually invested the same effort in reading the actual book, since the book itself plainly, openly and obviously contradicts a number of those fringe observations. It is the book itself which is the subject of the article, not "what some random conspiracy theorists say". Your fringe theory might have slightly more merit on the film article, rather than the book article, since the film differs significantly from the book in the treatment of Israel (it's renamed Palestine in the book; in the film it keeps the name Israel) and the treatment of Palestinians (in the book uninfected Palestinians are specifically shown as being welcomed into former Israeli territory whilst infected Jews are refused; in the film the situation for Palestinians is not addressed to any significant extent but the Israeli forces are shown specifically welcoming devout Jews). So if you absolutely, positively must continue discussing your fringe theory, please do it over on World War Z (film) where, providing you cite scenes from the film rather than from the book, it will be far less likely to be reverted. Andrew Oakley (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Silent Hill 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Portland

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to C4

World War Z (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Newark

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SNAAAAKE!!. You have new messages at Evilandi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Commas

I specifically referred to "references and quotes", it's "bolding", such usage of commas is improper, and I'm not sure I like the tone of "welcome to Wikipedia". Omitting the serial comma is also improper. Please stop reintroducing errors. Despatche (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be so rude. You also need to keep in mind that no policy or guideline is ever something you should swear by unless you know it's all in order (and that missing a certain guideline does not necessarily mean you're new to Wikipedia). If I feel it's not, I'm certainly going to do something about it. But thank you for bringing it to my attention, because I'm going to ask them about it right now. Despatche (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always seen it, have always felt it was in error, have always known it was a custom adopted by many English speakers, and have never known it was an actual Wikipedia guideline, so I have always tried to edit it away when I can, and I have never brought it to their attention before now. And for God's sake, please stop being a total jerk. Despatche (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Niemti (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Resistance Movement

Stop spamming the article with irrelevant info and pics;
None of the info you post has anything to do with the Resistenza; so just read a book on it for starters and stop deleting well referenced and relevant info for the given topic. The rearrangement and adding of pics. and info pics. (like a flag) is also noteworthy and important. Why dont you post your irrelevant and completely beside the point info into a sandbox first; Daufer (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Italian resistance movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious troll who vandalizes several articles that I've been recently working on. Go see his edit history, for example: [14][15] --Niemti (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to respond on the talk page. If Daufer blindly reverts you on any other article again, I will open a report on ANI (or provide support if you want to do it). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl Silverburgh in Policenauts.

I made my case as to why the Meryl Silverburgh should cover the Policenauts incarnation on Talk:Meryl Silverburgh in case you're interested. Jonny2x4 (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Big Boss (Metal Gear) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nikolai Sokolov

Strider Hiryu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Double Helix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hounding of Niemti by Daufer. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cobalt bomb may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

established a secret nuclear deterrent comprising 50 buried cobalt bombs. The 1954 science fiction]short story "[[Exhibit Piece]]" by [[Philip K. Dick]] ends with the newspaper headline 'RUSSIA

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARMA 2

Hi there, would you mind clarifying why you tagged ARMA 2's lead section as too short? I personally can't think of anything that could be added to it, it clarifies what the game is and where it comes from...--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about: gameplay, plot, development, reception, mods. --Niemti (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Giduck

Hello. Edit summaries are not the place to figure out if a published, and apparently well-known, author is a reliable source. If you think he is not a reliable source then bring up on the talk page or better yet at WP:RSN. I know nothing of this person nor do I care about him or the articles he's being excised from but what I do know is that whenever people start removing things from Wikipedia claiming that such'n'such a person is a "proven liar" and a "fraud" that usually means the person is pushing an agenda and is not being neutral.

Not to mention that instead of reverting me again the preferred method to resolve the issue is to discuss it on the talk page. I did a couple of minutes of searching and it appears that the Giduck owns the company that has published his books so there's plenty of red flags there that makes using him as a source in Wikipedia potentially problematical but you need to actually make those arguments instead of edit warring. SQGibbon (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Giduck is not "apparently well-known", which is why he has no article. And actually read WP:RS. --Niemti (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not having an article about him does not mean he is A) not notable and B) not a reliable source. And telling someone to read a Wikipedia page on a policy is beyond worthless. If there are particular points from WP:RS that are relevant then you need to make those points -- just waving your hand and telling someone else to do your work for you is not appropriate. And like I said, this needs to be discussed on the talk pages for those articles or at the reliable sources notice board. SQGibbon (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Curse of Enchantia box artwork.png

Thanks for uploading File:Curse of Enchantia box artwork.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Oddjob 007.jpg

Disruptive IP Blocked

Edit Summaries

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

No personal attacks

Official Warning

Blocked for 2 weeks

The King of Fighters XIII GA nom

Fallout: New Vegas GA review process

Motion to close RFC/U

Statement by Niemti

Its me.

Community topic ban

DayZ (video game)

The warsaw gettho uprising addition about Sarenka Rachel Zilberberg was removed by you? This is a cenzroship and you disturbing to our efforts to find maya, her daughther.why?

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Makoto

Battle of Okinawa

Orphaned non-free media (File:Psylocke MvC2.png)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Re

Transformers as robot characters in video games

category on David (A.I. character)

Video game characters categories discussions

Comment

Category: Robot characters in video games

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Boston marathon bombers

What?

oh geesh

Video game characters

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Heads up

File:Ghost in the Shell S.A.C. 2nd GIG Motoko Kusanagi.png listed for deletion

April 2013

Orphaned non-free media (File:Goro MK comic.jpg)

Orphaned non-free media (File:XCOM logo 2012.jpg)

Garibaldi

At ANI

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

April 2013

Category:Fictional sorceresses

BIOHAZARD DASH

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Ada Wong

Last changes

Thank you

GITS

May 2013

AN/I discussion

A word of advice

Chloe Sagal

May 2013

While I'm not going to say grabbing all available sources is a *bad* thing...

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Look at the definition of activists and see whether it fits

Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent in video games

Ways to improve Annica Smedius

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ibuki SFXT.jpg)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Removing pics

Orphaned non-free media (File:World War Z film poster.jpg)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

"kangkung" (List of characters in Mortal Kombat)

Wasteland 2

You are now edit warring over tags.

Mortal Kombat

You are wrong

Do not edit psylocke or I will report it

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Battle of Ia Drang

World War Z

Hey

Revert on

Oz character pages

Chronicles of Mystara

Xbox 360-only Games

June 2013

Poznań 1956 protests

While I'm not going to say grabbing all available sources is a bad thing...