User talk:TStein/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TStein/archive1.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is the archive for TStein, pre-name change. It dates from November 2006 to March 2007.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TStein, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod 02:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on AC article

ref: Comment by TStein on Markco1's Talk page
 I apologize for the errant revert – I am using a tool to scan for vandalism and I appeared to have erred in your case. I believe I may have reverted the wrong article – I am truly sorry and hope that I have not spoiled you wikipedia evening. Happy wiking. Markco1 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! :) That makes so much more sense. Because I was looking at the other stuff you were doing at around that time and most of that stuff was really obvious vandalism so I was really confused as to what I'd done. I wonder if this will make robot movies scarier now...? TStein 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are intersted in doing spell check or helping against Vandals – There are great tools at User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool you install them under your user page. The tools have a Live spell check tool as well. If you have any issues getting it going let me know – I had some problems initialy. Welcome aboard Markco1 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please do not remove content from your talk page; other users will utilize this page as a way of seeing past discussion, and removing things can be seen as disruptive if you appear to be trying to hide something. You may wish to consider archiving old discussions; take a look at the move page if you would like to learn more about moving and renaming articles. –  Anþony  talk  20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did put my talk page into archive, I just haven't linked it yet. I've been busy and as I have links to all of my subpages on my watchlist, working on my page and my talk page didn't seem to be a matter of great urgency. TStein 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to archive your talk page whenever you wish, but really there isn't so much here that you need to. Other users will frequently look to your talk page to get an idea of who you are on Wikipedia through your interactions with others -- which is what I was looking for. Even archiving prematurely sometimes gives the impression that you're trying to hide that history. If you're tired of looking at old discussions, go ahead and archive, but I think you'll also get tired of creating a new archive page every few weeks just for a couple sections. –  Anþony  talk  07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing External Links: The Bell Tree

Hello, I am one of the administrators of The Bell Tree, a website for AC, and I noticed you deleted the external link and said "this is the second bell tree revert on this article. please stop creating accounts just to promote the bell tree website". I would first like to thank you for removing the link. The Bell Tree is a new website with many of it's content still being made and it does not yet deserve a place in the external links at this time. However, I felt rather offended that you jumped to the conclusion that we were making many accounts in order to advertise The Bell Tree. If someone else adds the link, it is not right for you to criticize another member or website of advertising and sock puppetry.

Feel free to remove the link again (assuming another person adds it) if the website is still in it's present state. However, it will be an acceptable external link in the future when there is more content. So please do notjump to conclusions or make false accusations without having factual information.

Thankyou --StormCommander 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume that administrators of the site were creating accounts to promote the website. I'm assuming that a user is or that multiple users are. The day before, a new account called "thebelltree" added links to The Bell Tree website on both the ACGC article and the ACWW article. The following day, after the two links were reverted, a brand new account called "miles_blue" added the same two links back. (miles_blue has since created a talk page with a link to your site). I didn't know if they were admins of The Bell Tree, the same person, or just random bell tree users, but they clearly came to the article, and probably wikipedia just to promote the site. I apologize if it appeared as though I was attacking the site or the administraitors of the site. When it was first linked I went to the site and noticed that the site is not fully up and didn't look much past that--I removed the link with a comment to that effect. When the links appeared back the second day--I checked the contribs of the poster and left what I felt was an appropriate revert commenbt--so that if the cycle continued, people knew what was going on simply by looking at the edit summary. I never implicated or accused anyone. The only assumptions I made was that there was some connection between the two accounts and that the second account was created in order to make that edit.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. TStein 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who the member thebelltree is, but I will look into it. I found out who Miles Blue is and I have asked him not to put the link back up. But also please remember that just because someone recently joined or doesn't have many edits, does not mean that they are a sock puppet account. Also, not everyone knows what belongs in the External Links, so this is why it could have been added more than once by different members. --StormCommander 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eggcorn

Are you going to add your references directly to the article? You should add them so you get credit. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. What I logged on to do actually. I'm first checking to see if the articles are available as non-lexisnexis links. Done! Thanks for checking and reminding me. I appreciate it. TStein 02:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge (Lab notebook and Inventor's notebook)

ref: Comment by TStein on Edcolins's Talk page
 Thank you for your message on my talk page. Indeed I should have been more explicit. I have now added a message on the talk page of Lab notebook. Let me know if you think it is not a good idea to merge the articles. Thanks... And, well.. happy new year! --Edcolins 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request – template:Animal Crossing series

TStein, I've signed on as your cabal mediator, and started a discussion here. Please let me know if you have any questions. TheronJ 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding AC

ref: Comment by TStein on Grubber's Talk page
 Thanks for the comment about AC, and I have put a reply in my talk page. I hope we can make that page better. One thing I will suggest is that you take a couple minutes and put something in your user page. Personally, I monitor almost 500 pages for vandalism and errant edits, and I scrutinize red-linked users' and anonymous users' edits much more closely since most vandalism occurs from these kinds of users. - grubber 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I know. I'm working on my user page, but, you did finally convince me to put up something in the meantime. TStein 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just having the blue instead of red will make your edits go further :) – grubber 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Person

Thanks for your boldness in editing Person. You ask what happened. To put it simply, User:Lucy-marie altered every occurence of 'persons' to 'people' on the grounds that 'persons' is not a word! She also altered every occurence of 'personhood' to being a person', on the grounds that 'personhood' was a made-up word! I reverted. She re-reverted and this whole stupid exercise took off. It has now been established, as if it needed to be, in the discussion page that 'persons' is a word (even, strangely, in the evidence that Lucy-marie presented). The article makes no sense with 'people' or 'being a person'. I am loathe to make any edits given the vituperation I have received over this, so please go ahead and make the changes. Then, perhaps, we can get to work in sorting out the article itself rather than the vocabulary. Emeraude 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I've been caught up a bit. Thank you so much for explaining things, I was wondering what happened. I'd seen mentions of a "personhood" v. "being a person" debate but hadn't looked at the article closely enough or at the edit history closely enough. When I saw that titles and quotes had changed I couldn't believe it. Since the article is basically talking about other people's work on personhood, the article should use the word personhood, so that's a silly argument, but even if that debate is going to go on for some reason, you can't change book names or article names. As you can see, I've edited the article, and left more comments on the talk page there, and I've left some comments on individual talk pages as well. I've also gone around fixing some of Lucy-marie's persons to people edits on other articles as well. Unfortunately, that is the easy stuff, so I'm now going to try and tackle the content issues and come up with a proposal that sorts everything out. TStein 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get with the times

ref: Warning by TStein on Lucy-marie's talk page
Please get with the times and notice the taes of those edits before giving me a warning. I thought i was all done with that rubbish but no you have to drag it up so i am going to ignore your warning as it is just blatantly a warning for the sake of it as i have not edited those pages in ages.--Lucy-marie 10:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you stopped editing "persons" to "people" somewhere around the 5th, a little over a week ago. And since you have stopped your edits and if you don't plan to continue them or ones of a similar sort, then there won't be a problem. But you have not responded to any talk pages or fixed any of your edits, and since you haven't fixed them yourself, I don't know if I'm going to continue stumbling on pages you have grammar vandlized and need to fix them. I was until today.
And aside from the issue of your persisent non-NPOV edits where you ignored dictionary definitions of words and what your fellow Wikipedia's were saying on talk pages, aside from the split which was against policy in 1000 ways, which ignored consensus, and which broke history, you also changed quotes and references and created dispute on an article about what terms should be used, so any time someone tried to fix the article, it was reverted saying that they were biased, that they had an opinion in the dispute that you had single-handedly created.
Hopefully, this is done and you can put this behind you. But in case you didn't know what problems had resulted from your edits, and what consequences it would have in the future, you get a warning. A warning also serves to inform other people who come to you talk page. If you don't have problems like these in the future, the warning will be archived and it won't be a big deal. If you have problems in the future, the warning may be looked at by a future editor. I did not as your edit summary says warn you "just for the sake of it." Warnings serve many purposes on Wikipedia, and this one is no different. TStein 11:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning would have been warented a week ago but not now it is completly unecessary and unwarented andtherfori am going to archive the warning immedatly. The reason i have not done any of those is because i have walked away so i do notget on anyone elses nerves and if you read the discusion i made an agreement with another user to just walk away so i have a good mind to warn you about putting up useless warnings. Please use warning more constructivly on vandals and troll and not on people who have left a situation well alone and are generally constructive editors, it is as if you have nothing better to do (my opinion).--Lucy-marie 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the comments where you and the other parties were willing to agree that the discussion had gotten inflammatory and you were all willing to back off and wait for outside (impartial) commentary. However please note that the warning isn't just about your previous behavoir--it's about your creating a dispute on the article that stopped all edits you contended until someone outside the article could be brought in. This not only stopped someone from fixing the article to use proper English, from making the article grammatically correct, but this meant that the article went a month with misquotes and incorrect references because you your issue with "personhood". Your refusal to let anyone biased change anything that was being fought over meant that the article was factually incorrect for over a month.
Also, please note that the warning I placed on your talk page says, "if your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here How to archive a talk page." Your talk page isn't long--your archive is very long. Do not archive warnings just because you disagree with them or do not want them on your talk page. Please unarchive the warning yourself. If you think that my warning was inappropriate, you can visit the Help Desk. TStein 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)+[reply]

This is getting stupid now you are going to the point where feel you are harassing and victimising me. I would like you to leave me and my talk page well alone please.--Lucy-marie 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings a Query

What authority are you working under to place those warnings on my user page? I was under the assumption they were only of any use if they were placed there by an administrator (which you are not).--Lucy-marie 01:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

ref: My comment on Fethroesforia's talk page
 I dont appreciate your innapropriate behaviour on my talk page. It is needless, the same message could of been gotten across using a normal message. Instead you made it hostile, which is generally NOT a good thing. Whatever your message was (i didnt read it, i disregarded it as soon as i saw it was a warning from a non admin and about a subject i couldnt care less about. In future, if you leave any messages please leave them in good faith, and dont place nasty messages, I will OPENLY read and accept any message, so whatever it was, feel free to re message, just not in a hostile context. Thanks Fethroesforia 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the title of my message was warning--I did write you a personal talk page message which happened to address three topics. One of these topics, the first, was a friendly warning about your talk page content. I did use some of the userify warning text, but I did that partially because I an not an admin and I can't link to Wiki pages off of the top of my head and templates like this are really helpful for me and for other Wikipedia editors.
I have no idea how you thought my behavoir was inappropriate. First, the template is not my own construction and neither are the Wikipedia guidelines it is based on, so if you have an issue with those, I'm clearly not the person to take them up with.
Second, using templates, or parts of template language when giving users a friendly warning is standard on Wikipedia. It makes sure that the same information is being disseminated, and it meant that instead of you just getting a one line thing from me saying that your user page was inappropriate, I could give you links to the proper guideline pages.
I do understand and agree with you that template messages often come off feeling cold, and if I'd prefer an individual message any day of the week, but you got that. I started that way and ended that way and only three lines out of a multi-para comment on multiple topics were actually taken from a template.
I'd really appreciate to know how you thought my comment was in any way hostile or innapropriate. TStein 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i find comments from you innapropriate, and contrary to your own opinion, rude, or that is how it comes across, which is all that matters. A KINDLY WORDED message or note or maybe a 'thought you would like toknow, your user page has a few problems' then I would do my utmost to help. But your arrogance and victimisation of myself I find inappropriate. If you would like to send a message detailing what is wrong without using patronising, rude, condesending and uncivil undertones, then go ahead, till then, my user page stays the same(that is until you raise some actual real points without uncivil language use Fethroesforia 20:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- you are the first (FIRST, AS IN NUMBER ONE) person to of bought whatever you did to my attention, also noticing the three people you are harassing are me (bnp supporter), lucy marie (active editor of bnp and is against vandalism of it) and boris johnson VC(a tory i guess) this is no coincidence. iw ill happily discuss any topic about my userpage as long as you remain civil. Until then, it stays Fethroesforia 20:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be paranoid. I know absolutely nothing about British politics and have never been to the article in question. But, guess where you have been? You comment on the talk pages of editors that you agree with (and disagree with), especially when they have userpages that flaunt their personal views. Just so you know and can stop being paranoid that I'm hunting down members with certain political views, I still had Lucy_marie's talk page on my watchlist when you commented leaving her your news bulletin and I clicked on your userpage and saw the news bulletin you'd left there. I left you a warning, and was clicking around Wikipedia for awhile too lazy to work on anything big but I didn't have anything small I needed to do, and got to Boris Johnson's talk page somehow, I think I was looking at your contributions for awhile, I read some fish article you wrote--I don't really remember, I was bored. When I saw Boris Johnson wherever I did see him, I remembered seeing him before because there's some controversy over his name and I think that controversy was on a noticeboard when I was posting there. So I recognized the username and clicked. Btw, you forgot to point out that I have another BNP editor on my talk page Emeraude, but that we aren't fighting. Really, it's not a conspiracy. I'm not a Brit and all I know about your politics is that I really like watching them on C-SPAN. Have no fear, I've seen y'all fight elsewhere and I have interest in ever editing the BNP article. TStein 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

ref: Warning by TStein on Boris Johnson VC's talk page
 Hi, I got your warning and must say i am a little bewildered by it, i was wondering if you could be a bit more specific about what you think is unacceptable, rarther than just giving me a link to some guidelines. After all Jimbo Wales has a quote on his userpage highlighting the importance of freedom of speach, and there is nothing on my user page dsigned to be provocative or to casue offence. From your userpage i can see nothing about you, which i do find a little creapy. Please note that the guidelines are just that, guidelines, not rules which MUST be followed at all times.

P.S. For such a new user you seem to have got into a lot of arguments, maby you should concider trying to cool down a bit, and give the rules a looser intirpritation...--Boris Johnson VC 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, while nothing on your userpage may be designed to be provocative or cause offence, it is provocative and it does cause people offence. Other's have asked you to tone it down before and you've had previous warnings and been given links to WP:USER before. In fact, you've been linked to the exact section "What can I not have on my userpage" before. So I'm a little suprised that you're "bewildered" by the warning, though I haven't seen how your userpage used to look. This may be your userpage toned down.
In case you haven't actually been to the guidelines that I and others have linked you to, this is basically what they say:

"Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian."

The guidelines give examples of various types of unrelated content and include a quote from Jimbo (one that's in your talk page archives right now:
You asked if I could be more specific about what on your userpage I thought was unacceptable. Well, while some of your userpage statments are more provocative than others, the thing is is that most of them have little to do with Wikipedia or you as a Wikipedian. They have to do with other stuff--you as a person, your political views and while I'm all for free speech, but most of your userpage just doesn't belong here. Whether you support globalisation and free trade is just kinda irrelevant to Wikipedia, and that userbox would be fine by itself, but the majority of your text and at least half of your userboxes fall outside these guidelines, and much of what does, is in fact provocative.
My user page doesn't say anything about me yet simply because I haven't had the time. When I do finish it, all it will tell you are Wiki related things anyway, which won't honestly be that much. You can glean a lot more by looking at my edit history and by reading my talk page, where I provide reference links so that users can view the entire conversation. From the wealth of data about me available, all you've managed to glean about me is that I get into a lot of conflicts. From the wealth of data about you available, I'm managed to find out the following. Even though we joined Wikipedia at the same time, and have roughly the same number of edits, to you, I am, "such a new user", and seem to get into a lot of arguements. In fact, all of my conflicts have been a case where I gave someone a warning, worded nicely and politely using much of the general template language and the user got annoyed and reacted by attacking me. In your case you told me that I was "such a new user" and implied that I was misapplying guidelines right and left and getting into conflicts with everyone because of it. In fact, I'm not the first user to bring this issue to your attention--my comment is the fifth you've gotten on it, and even though we've been on Wikipedia the same amount of time and have the same number of edits, you have a long talk page archive and have amassed much more response, both good and bad then I have. Which means that contrary to what you said, I'm an editor who for the most part, flies under the radar. I don't have a userpage that garners personal attacks or opinions of support, and anything that happens at an article stays at an article.
You've had this issue pointed out to you multiple times, so please don't tell me that I don't understand the guidelines or that you are bewildered by my warning. TStein 08:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

ref:My Comment on Fethroesforia's talk page
 You are driving people away from wikipedia, good honest editors feel they are being victimised by you. Myself, i see myself as a good honest editor (with a fair few edits i think, every single one in good faith and a fair few pages created) I am contemplating leaving solely because of the harassment you are giving me and other like minded users. Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia by everyone, for everyone. Lets keep it that way and not try and censor user pages. I can see how this could be taken as rude, but I am merely writing this in response to your own message. and also looking at VERY similar comments left for other users by yourself. Please dont drive good wikipedians away by hastily leaving hostile (or may come across as such) messages on talk pages. everything can be sorted out with civility (see the bnp page..arguements sometimes but sorted out with civility). I hope..we can talk about this in a civil manner, this is merely a note for you saying how your messages come across to others (you may not mean them to) Fethroesforia 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"this is merely a note for you saying how your messages come across to others"

No, that's not what this is, this is a personal attack. You already told me how my warning came accross and I left you a message on your talk page asking you why you thought it was "inappropriate", "hostile" and "nasty" and why you were accusing me of bad faith. That gave you the perfect opportunity to explain to me how I was coming accross to others. Instead, you choose to attack me again, and accuse me of even more, when all I did this time is ask what I did to offend you last time.
Asking what offended you is considered vistimising you, harrassing your and is making you consider leaving Wikipedia? Please, explain to me how my messages are coming accross to others. I left you a message on your talk page. It contained a template good faith warning. If you disagreed with the template or the policy, I don't think that you should be slinging words at me. If you disagreed with the message I left you after that, tell me what in my words offeneded you--but please, tell me because I thought it was a nice talk page message, so clearly if it offended you that badly I have a communication problem. If you're not going to tell me even though I've asked multiple times but are going to continue attacking me and accusing me of things, then that's going to be problem. Because we can't communicate civilly if you won't actually respond to my comments with anything other than personal attacks and I don't appreciate being personally attacked on my talk page or in edit summaries. I'll talk about whatever issue you want civilly, but for that to happen, you need to stop attacking me. TStein 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

whats this in your message? you said 'I wasn't saying that you'd done anything wrong or warning you there'

Seriously..your message was titled WARNING

how else does one take that? i think..its a warning, so why in your message did you say you were not warning? hmm? Fethroesforia 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"or warning you there"
there
I was leaving you a message about three different topics and in that part of the message it wasn't a warning, it was advice, and as is the nature of advice, you can take it or leave it. TStein 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then

In your opinion, what do you feel is wrong with my user page. From my view, theres no lies in it. Its mostly for my own use anyway (to keep track of my list to do and keep an eye on pages ive made) Fethroesforia 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K, so ive over reacted, please leave amessage at my talk page and well come to some agreement i guess..or something..(low blood sugar) ill be on in morning, again, sorry,i over reacted. Fethroesforia 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was never accusing you of lying. Did it come across like that? See, this is why templates are so great for non-admins. I know something I said upset you (though I still don't know what), but if you'd clicked the link that said, this section in the original warning it would have explained everything. I'd still recommend clicking on it, it goes into real detail, but here's the gist:

"Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian."

The guidelines go on to give examples of various types of unrelated content. The one that's most appropriate in your case would be Polemical statements for which they have a quote from from Jimbo

libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea

So your lists of what you work on and I think all of your userboxes are appropriate. Personal information is fine. In fact if it's going to affect someone and how they edit, it's good to have. Interests and things that help wiki-editors connect are good. And you'll notice that a lot of userpages have some stuff that's irrelevant to Wikipedia but if it's a small amount and something that isn't likely to offend anyone, people generally let it slide. A "this user believes in the flying spaghetti monster" userbox isn't really provocative but a "this user believes the flying spaghetti monster is more likely than creationism" userbox is considered provocative. They both are irrelevant to the person as a Wikipedian, they both fall outside of the guidelines, but one is definitely more likely to cause problems.
I think the only parts of your page that fall outside of these guidelines are the "I'd like to" section and the blue box at the top, but I've been thinking about how to rewrite the blue box to be funny and not outside guidelines and I can't think of anything. I don't think it matters anyway--I think it's fine the way it is now, especially if it's the only thing on your page like that and since political correctness actually has to do with editing what others say and Communism and BNP didn't. It's actually much funnier this way. As long as it's not directly attacking something, I think you can leave it--it's only one thing and I really don't think it will offend people. I do think that you have to remove the "I'd like to" section though.
Let me know if all of that made sense. The other stuff I was saying about archiving in my original message, that was just a suggestion about how you might want to change how you archive. It's completely an opinion so you can completely ignore that if you want.
Does that explain my original message? I hope so. Let me know if it doesn't or anything else. TStein 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense,pretty much, though i have seen a lot of "this user believes the flying spaghetti monster is more likely than creationism" userboxes, and to be honest, i find them sort of offensive (im a christian). Yea, im not sure what i got upset over, but it was most likely nothing (ive borderline personality disorder..not fun). Anyways, thanks:)

Fethroesforia 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS- i do have a question. I might add to the help desk later. Do you happen to know how to source an unreserahced article. (such as, the game ultimate game combat) I know wikipedia doesnt allow own research but thereis no other way, as it is rarely discussed and everything in the article is true and in the game, but has no source as it is a rare-ish game.[reply]

Hmm..I'm running out of the house right now so I'll try and give you a better answer later (I think I have a source that will be better than the helpdesk, but at least in my own experience game articles are a slightly different breed. So saying something about the opening credits wouldn't necessarily have to have a source because the game itself is the source--you probably wouldn't be able to find an article or website the talked about it unless you found an asked and answered question in a forum and that's not really a notable source at all. If it's something relatively uncomplex that other people can check (i.e. they don't have to press x,x, a, b and do a double spin attack combination to find whatever you're talking about) then it's probably fine to put it in yourself
If it is anything that you can't find sources for, put it on the talk page. That will help prevent any conflicts. Also, a lot of times people write articles based on game documentation that's incorrect and that causes other problems, so going by what's in game is always ok. The game is the first source and documentation is based on it. Just make sure that the article doesn't sound like a game guide. You should have all of the information on how well it sold and its creation and its place in the company and the system and that sort of stuff. All of that stuff should have sources and they shouldn't be hard to find.
Also, if you need help finding sources for something, especially something already written, you may want to turn to someone who has access to online databases like Lexus-Nexis. I have access to a lot of online databases and I'd be happy to help you if you want. TStein 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing series mediation update

TStein, AManInBlack, it looks like we've gotten all of the opinions from the RFC that we're likely to get. I've posted a wrap-up on the template talk page, together with some ideas on where you might like to go from here. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TStein/archive1&oldid=1158037695"