User talk:Dracolych/Archive 1

Archive 1

Teahouse Question

I could not answer your question, but I checked it and made some changes in it.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Thanks for the help. :) One of the problems I'm running into is that I can't find RSes for anything development-related regarding FT, but I don't know if that's going to be in any way resolvable aside from going into simple statement of fact of what sort of code it was built on, etc. I might have to omit coverage of development entirely, and I dunno how badly that's gonna cripple it when I do send it in for AfC review... BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In Afc notablity is important. If that passes then do not worry! Other editors will built up the articles! But try to find something else remove that heading!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Famitracker

Hiya. Good sources would be a magazine article talking exclusively about the subject, what it is, about its history, application, basically all the information you would find on the subject's website but reported by someone else. A wide coverage on the subject in media will help. Currently, there seems to be a lack of this for your article.

Gamasutra, interviews are primary sources

TidBITS, "Despite the graphics not being possible on an NES, the sound could have been. Using an app called FamiTracker — which is used to create NES music on Windows machines — they programmed the music to work on a special sound chip called the VRC6, which was used in Japanese games of the time, but never in the West." This is okay, be great if the article covered more on the subject itself.

Redbull, doesn't mention the subject just the game.

You can always try and merge your article with related existing articles if it is relevant. Maybe make a new article on chiptune trackers, if it doesn't exsist? Whatever you choose to do have fun with it. (Oh, unrelated but I love cats & rats!!!) Adyoo3 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Adyoo3:...but the RB article does mention it; I used it to attribute the statement of its .NSF conversion functionality, it's about 2/3 of the way down the article body:

For this game, Jake worked in a program called Famitracker that outputs real NSF – short for Nintendo Sound Format – audio files. If you had an NES cartridge that was big enough and the right setup, you could actually burn the soundtrack of Shovel Knight to it and play our soundtrack on your NES." How’s that for authenticity?

One thing I found is a post on Gamasutra by one of Shovel Knight's developers that does actually talk a lot more about FT in detail here --> http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DavidDAngelo/20140625/219383/Breaking_the_NES_for_Shovel_Knight.php but of course the problem is that it's WP:PRIMARY information, even moreso than the Kaufman interview, so on its own, it won't likely push the article to acceptable notability... sigh.

In any case, I suppose a couple of things I'm considering doing is either incubating the draft in my sandbox until FamiTracker has more extensive writing done on it, or maybe following your suggestion to take the information and try to improve the article on music tracker software with it, but eh. I dunno yet.

(Also, YES. They are the best. I love playing video games or watching YouTube while my ratties nap in my sweater. :3 ) BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your mediation skills. Jimgerbig (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Impalement

You forgot to edit the case to mark the case as open rather than new. I have opened it for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks. I was going to do so once I got back online today, since I was leaving a bit of space while I was offline for other DRN volunteers to have a say before I marked it as open; I wasn't sure if anyone had a concern, but if it's fine, then alright. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Carry on with the moderation. I wouldn't take a case with an IP, but that is just my non-preference. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi There

Hi, I saw the comment about making an account. Is there some sort of mentorship program, or should I ask for an administrator, to vet what's happening at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Impalement#tagging?96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@96.52.0.249: The closest thing I can recommend to a mentorship program is perhaps WP:Adopt-a-user, where there's a list of editors you can choose from that are willing to "adopt", or act as a guide for new users seeking help. Out of curiosity, is there a reason that you feel you should have another, more experienced party examining the DRN case? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It may seem that I made a mistake intitaling a resassessment of an article. But without an account. I think this was clear, and I offered to make an account. But I feel that I've presented logical and rational reasons for my changes. I'm concerned that if editors are ignoring my concerns, which only is to improve wikipedia, then the end goal is defeated. There shouldn't be any "I don't like it" without cause. That's not how wikipedia runs.96.52.0.249 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I can only recommend that you continue the discussion about your GAR and the changes you made on the DRN case, under the auspices of us volunteers, so that if their reasoning truly is based on bad faith and not on any actual content-based concerns, we'll be sure to bring it to their attention and try to nudge them in the right direction. Seeking the opinions of someone else while the case is still ongoing is at a risk of seeming like canvassing and a lack of faith in the DRN volunteers' ability to mediate the discussion, although I personally understand your intent.

Lastly I would consider it unwise to immediately assume that just because they started out bitey, that they will remain so-- something about the law of attraction, you know. If you go into things assuming a negative outcome will happen, things will often work out that way-- it's hokey and smacks of , I know, but I've personally never been let down by keeping a positive outlook. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 14:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Got your message, thanks. I brought up the possibility of the article fallfalling within another wikiproject since there are many medical sources referring to impaled objects.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

96.52.0.249, It'd probably be something to consider, but it seems to me like the article focuses more on impalement as a torture technique at the moment, and as such it would probably need to be restructured substantially to allow room for a section on impalement in a medical context... if it were to go into that direction, it would probably be good to involve that WProject, or at least someone familiar with WP:MEDRS standards. Are the medical sources you're talking about documented cases of accidental impalement, or medical research into it? Anyway, this seems like something a bit out of the scope of the specific content dispute being addressed in the DRN case and may sidetrack the discussion of the dispute, so you might do well saving it until after the case is closed. It's an interesting idea for the article's future, at any rate. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 10:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A small section shouldn't be an issue. Previous versions had sections on impalement in animals; a caption of a lizard being impaled by a bird (of prey), for example. Seems out of the scope of the current "general" topic of the article, which is why the other 'opposing' editors disagreed with my changes. They feel it is to drastic for a good article. Which was why I reassessed the article. Two mistakes on my part: I didn't make an account, and, now I relizerealize, I didn't post on the wikiproject.96.52.0.249 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving that "stale discussion notice". I understand why I need to put faith in you. DRN has been a really great forum.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Before you close the file, can you let me know?96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@96.52.0.249: Sure thing. My most recent posting contains some suggestions for finding a solution to the dispute, so the ball's in the involved parties' (and in part, your) court. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the continuing coordination of the case (I've made 2 replies since (I believe)). I do request that you let me know, before you close it, when, and if, you do. I don't know what sort of process should occur, such that if you want to hand it off to someone, please let me know. Thanks again!96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering, whatever happens, could you wait at least until 5 days after my last comment to close the file, if I don't mention otherwise? I prefer if you could message me on my talk page, thanks.96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Thank you for helping out at DRN. Let me suggest that when someone puts their initial comments in the wrong place (generally as an indented response to the filing party's opening statement), that you just move them into the proper summary section rather than hatting them. Hatting them seems more like a criticism than just a gentle reminder. You can, if you like, put a volunteer's note in the discussion section noting that you've done it and inviting to responder to further flesh out or revise his summary if s/he cares to do so, but just moving them is enough. If they object to their edit being moved, revert what you did if they've not already done it and take it to the DRN talk page. No big deal, frankly, just some advice. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: No problem, I'll keep that in mind for the future. I was worried that the involved parties would jump right into arguing in the opening statement section or something, and I was a bit ABF/overzealous in preempting it in such a way, I'll admit. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, now that you have closed the entire DRN discussion, what next, Kimosabe? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: It wasn't me who hatted the talkpage thread, that was TransporterMan. I've already said enough about the subject, and I am disengaging from the case entirely so Robert can moderate discussion as he sees fit. I'm not about to get involved any further than that, so I'm not really sure what you're asking of me here. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 17:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear who was monitoring what. If you are not anymore, then farewell. The entire section is now closed, so I guess everyone has given up and gone home. The depredations shall continue unabated. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I don't really know what you mean by saying everyone has "given up and gone home". Measures have just been taken to ensure the discussion stops spilling out everywhere else but the DRN discussion where it's supposed to be. The DRN case is not closed, so you're free to contribute to it so long as you abide by the ground rules Robert has laid out on the case page for all parties to follow. Of course, whether or not you contribute to that discussion is your own choice to make. Anyway, I want to keep DRN-related discussion on my own TP to a minimum, so I recommend you go back to DRN and continue with the case, as Robert will be keeping a very close eye on it. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 18:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion area is closed. But I see the happening now. Thanks. Over and out. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, well

It appears that one of the editors in the Impalement dispute is going away. (Take a look at WP:A/R/C. I'm not typing in the full case information.) You may soon only have one registered editor and one IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm seeing a couple of cases that OZ is involved in-- if that's who you're referring to-- but after skimming them I'm not sure I'm seeing what you mean; it's a little early to assume that they're getting blocked if the cases aren't closed, isn't it? I have no idea what that's all about and I don't have much interest in digging into the meat of those cases and finding out, so... I'll probably make a statement on the DRN case that they won't be expected to be an active party if something to that effect happens, but only once it's made official. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 21:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others/Proposed_decision. If you look, you will see that there is an absolute majority for a site-ban for sock-puppetry and other things (for an editor who was on a run to get rid of alleged sock-puppets). By the time that the IP comes back, it will almost certainly be final, and you will have one IP and one registered editor. Robert McClenon (talk)

@Robert McClenon: I see what you mean. Not sure when the final decision is going to be posted and the case closed, but I'll wait until it's a done deal before mentioning it on DRN; no reason to draw extra eyes to the dramah while it's still ongoing. On another note, consider this my resolution to never let myself get carted to Arbcom for anything whatsoever. Just skimming over that page and trying to figure out if the final decision had been reached, or if not when, was stressful as all geddout. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 23:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is easy enough to avoid going to ArbCom. If you don't edit disruptively over a long period of time, you won't become a subject party to an arbitration case against your will. To avoid being a voluntary party to an arbitration case, don't file an arbitration case, and don't take part in an arbitration case. It is easy enough to avoid ArbCom if you just don't do anything that is a really flagrant conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommend close

At this point I think that the case really has been inactive too long, and I would suggest that it is time to close the case as stale. That is just my opinion. (I would have been much less patient with an IP, but that is my position, and others disagree.) Your case has one editor who has taken an excessive break, one editor who has no one else to interact with, and one editor who is "no longer a member of the Wikipedia community". Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll do one more round of TP notifications on the two of them, reiterate my recommendations, and do a close as stale in 12-24 hours if they bring nothing else to the table for the case, provided I don't get interrupted too much at work. In other circumstances wouldn't have let it go on as long as it did, but it wasn't a superbly emotionally-charged or contentious dispute and I saw no reason not to give the IP a fair chance while they were offwiki if I was allowed. It's been going long enough with too little engagement, though, I agree. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 16:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I need a few days to decompress. 24 hours is too short. But I will engage there.96.52.0.249 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jimi Hendrix and acid rock

Hi! Would you care to comment at this RfC? It is about the article Jimi Hendrix and whether "acid rock" warrants inclusion in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

A cookie for you!

Congrats on a successfully resolved case at DRN! As you know we don't get a lot of those. Keep up the good work! Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Violence and Buddhism

I appreciate your thoughts on DR but I'm sorry, U3964057 has both claimed that page for himself and is unbearable to deal with, and I believe deliberately so given how he rapidly and politely replies to other people: his behavior is manipulative, evasive, and condescending. He tells me to calm down; his replies are pretty much always "I need you to answer my questions" and ignores my attempts to find out his wishes (and my answers to his questions, which he simply ignores and repeats the questions), as normally editors do in a conversation. Frankly, he has succeeded in deterring me from editing that page, which I believe was his goal in the first place, and since I started editing in 2006, I have never once had an editor (or a group of editors) drive me from a page before.

I came to add simple content, I found I was blocked my someone who demands discussion about the theory of the page until I can't take it anymore and go away. Well, I'm going.

Why is he doing it? I have no idea. Maybe he enjoys it. But I give up. Going to DR is going to get me nowhere, because he does not respond to other editors like this. He'll just dance through it and then go back to what he was doing. He actually took your statement of 3O and rephrased it to make you look bad!

But again, thank you. Ogress _smash! 06:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Eh, no problem, I tried-- not my issue if he ultimately doesn't believe I'm trying to help. I feel like things on either side of that fence could have been handled better, but in the big scheme of things it's just Wikipedia and doesn't really matter. BlusterBlaster ^beep_boop 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good lord he's still at it, he just can't let himself win without also having the last word, can he?

Anyway, good luck editing. Your future 3Os can't possibly be as bad as we were. :-) Ogress _smash! 05:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Auxy: Beat Studio has been accepted

Auxy: Beat Studio, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

--Anarchyte 04:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Can you allow me access to edit Markipliers wiki page? Jayjacy1234 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry friend, I am not the droid person you are looking for. In order to be able to edit a semiprotected article, you need to be autoconfirmed, which means that your account needs to be 4 days old and you need to make at least 10 edits on that account. You can bring up changes you want to make on the article talkpage and an autoconfirmed editor can discuss rationale for doing/not doing that edit with you. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time

That was a real nice job you did trimming the plot section. That was the longest plot section I've ever seen. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks man! I suspect I might have to poke around the other R&C game articles to make sure their plot summaries don't read like a fanboy's blow-by-blow of every single cutscene in a 30+ hour long game... ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 11:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Hello BlusterBlaster. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)