User talk:Ex-Nintendo Employee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, and welcome to my talk page. Unfortunately, I have decided to no longer contribute to the project. My reasons I've explained in detail on my main userpage. This means, of course, that messages left on this page won't be replied to. Sorry, but I felt I had no other choice.


Discussions from the past:

Contents

[edit] Hi!

Looking at your user page, I can tell that you know a lot about politics and what mankind needs and does not need. Also your stance on nuclear energy suggests that you have a degree in science, perhaps you were a radiologist before working at Nintendo in the middle of 2001. You should update your user page so people can see that you truly are an expert in these fields JayKeaton 10:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

1. You got the episode wrong. 2. You take it completely out of context (the gag is a reference to Homer's stupidity, not saying that he's a clone) 3. There is no source.

Thus, it stays out. -- Scorpion 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I hope I can contribute more in the future! 9ofzeven 09:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo

Sorry I'm out of context, but I'm writing a report about Nintendo and I was wondering if you could tell me how it is from the inside, I mean for the employee. Were you happy working there? Thanks a lot, have a nice day.

Replied on user's talk page. Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start a new discussion

Instead of harping on this discussion is necessary stuff, why not do the correct thing, and gain a new consensus to bring them back? If their importance is a great as you claim it to be, it should be easy to get one. Just go to the list talk page, and start it. TTN 04:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to force this, please discuss somewhere. Either with me or on the list of series enemies. Don't just keep reverting the "important" articles. TTN 16:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SNES

Just read the history page for the SNES: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System&action=history - I think the comment you added was a little harsh, especially for an IP edit: Remember, Don't bite the newbies 81.149.182.210 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not if you looked a little farther down the history page, this particular comment stems from the fact that this anon had been repeatedly adding in unsourced assertions to the SNES article. It was disruptive. :P Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] afd

there is an AfD to express the same concern you noted on my talk page, ie, Juan. SchmuckyTheCat 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm a little bit annoyed that the respective fan boy's have got their way but they'll end up looking a bit slliy come May. Thanks again. Movellon 12:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate in the WikiProject Dragon Quest

Hello, since you're interested in video games articles, I thought I'd inform you of a debate currently taking place in the WikiProject Dragon Quest. It is about whether we should use the name Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest or Dragon Quest Heroes for the slime spin-off series of the franchise. There are currently not enough people involved to actually reach a clear consensus, so you are invited to read the discussion (or have a look, if it's too long) here and here and give your opinion on the question. Thank you! Kariteh 07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvin Heemeyer

Please read my comment on User talk:FayssalF. I'm not in the mood to continue the debate this morning. Perhaps I'll pick it up later. For what it's worth, I did not contact CKatz in any way. I presume his edit summary mentioned me because he saw my name in the edit history.

--Richard 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ex-Nintendo Employee. Both of you are half-right. The poster is pointing out to the POV problems but they fail to stay objective.

Well, you could have reached a middle ground by contacting each other on the spot (you and User:Richardshusr). They could have explained to you why they believe that the comment was miles away from being objective eventhough it was about the subject of the article and what the policy tell us about that matter. (i.e. talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article.) source/WP:NOT. And you could have explained to them why you believe that the anonymous poster got a point.

I am not sure if it was a matter of AGF between yourselves but i am sure it was an issue of the lack of communication in this case. I'll leave the same comment to User:Richardshusr. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo characters

"There was good info" is not an acceptable reason to undo those. They do not meet WP:FICT and WP:WAF, and they contain game guide information. There seems to be a general consensus in merging the generic enemies anyways. TTN 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal feelings over the characters don't really matter. They do not meet the above guidelines, so that is pretty much it. There doesn't need to be a big discussion with these. They fail the guidelines, only a few people care, and that's it. The only "controversial" ones are King Boo and Petey. Nobody else has bothered with the rest. TTN 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And to let you know, a consensus by your standards cannot be built. Consensus only comes from discussion based around the policies and guidelines. In this case, people will ignore them and go with their personal feelings. Numbers do not rule, so even in the face of a bunch of people wanting to keep the articles, they would still be going away. TTN 13:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they fail the guidelines. There is no outside of universe information on any of them (except for one small bit on the Chain Chomps), and they read like game guides. It doesn't matter if they're the most popular beings in the world; nothing can be written about them. Their "cultural impact" is more of your own opinion anyways. TTN 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't say that you're going to rely on the "discussion is needed for every single change" card. Just please stop. In the end, the articles will be redirected, so there is no need to go through this pointless game. TTN 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to get the point. For one, you are way over glorifying these simple enemies. This information is game guide material; you may like it, but non-fans could care less. There already is a silent consensus. When nobody has reverted any of them (besides the boss characters), that shows that nobody cares, thus a consensus is formed. Formal discussion is not required; it's just nice to have. When merging characters, it is just a pointless waste of time. TTN 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ask that to anyone but a Mario fan, and they'll respond with a "huh?". The only enemies someone not interested with video games could think of are "King Koopa and his Koopa Troopas" in a cheesy voice (from those cheesy commercials back then). Plenty of people have edited that article, and are active on that talk page. The enemies have also been merged over a length of time; at least ten people have seen them come and go. There is a difference between people not caring, and people not noticing. You are just pushing this because you have no other way of keeping the articles. You cannot respond to "how can they fit WP:FICT and WP:WAF?" or anything like that. TTN 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should combine non-notable characters onto lists. Comparing articles isn't a good way to decide if they need them (see WP:WAX). Please stop stating that they're notable without actually showing it (you need sources). Anyways, if you would actually read the guidelines, you would see that notability isn't the only thing a character needs. To make sure you know, I am fine with discussions that can bring about results. If you look here, I merged the episode articles. We discussed based upon WP:EPISODE (that is to episode articles as FICT and WAF are to fiction articles), and they stayed redirects. There is no way to have an actual discussion over these. Too many people, including yourself, will ignore stated guidelines. If a discussion is brought about, all you'll get are some fans. That is pointless because there is no way to have a consensus building discussion. Here is the discussion that will happen if you would like to see it:
  • TTN: These enemies fail WP:FICT... blah blah blah
  • Random person: But they're important to the series!
  • TTN:: It really doesn't matter how important they are to the series. They need out of universe information... blah blah blah
  • Random person + others: But they're important!
  • TTN and maybe one other person: They fail the guidelines, so it doesn't really matter... blah blah blah
That is no way to build a consensus. Please look at your writing, and you'll see that you have a definite agenda in trying to keep these pages. You are doing nothing but WikiLawyering because you lack an actual argument. TTN 03:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just stating what I see. You are still ignoring guidelines, so me pointing out your lack of an argument is not a personal attack, though it is blunt. You keep going on with how important and major they are, but as I have told you, that has no baring on anything. They need real world information, but you still don't address that. You don't even show their notability in general. Claims of notability mean nothing, please accept that already. You have not provided one link showing that people that don't like video games know about them. Please read and address WP:FICT and WP:WAF before saying anything else. TTN 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read more clearly. If you had bothered to click on "encyclopedic treatment" in the section that you quoted, you would have gone to WP:WAF, though you should have read it in the first place. If you read FICT further, you'll see that major and minor are defined by how much non-trivial information can be written (i.e. out of universe). Please reread them and respond. TTN 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll still reply anyways. This isn't about a simple disagreement. It's about out of universe information; the articles have none. How am I making my own interpretation? If anyone is doing it, it's you (in series notability doesn't get them an article). You refuse to actually read the points, so I must tell you to actually read them. If you even look at the opening of WP:WAF, you'll see the need for OOU info. Instead of spinning this back on me, how about you address the lack of real world info? TTN 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So you demand discussion, but you're going to refuse to discuss because you think I'm attacking you? In the very least, you should start a formal discussion and add merge tags yourself, seeing as you're the only person calling for discussion. This would help prove that you have no bias. TTN 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Editor's Note: This discussion was ended by me on the basis of continued personal attacks levelled by TTN (as seen above). I've completed my discussion regarding this topic Ex-Nintendo Employee 03:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Having reviewed your contribution history, I have blocked you for 48 hours to give the others a rest from your wearisome edit warring. Feel free to start a request for comment or mediation case, but do it from the basis of the merged and redirected articles rather than edit-warring over unreferenced content whose encyclopaedic value is disputed by other editors of those articles. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "It's apparent that User:JzG hasn't "reviewed my contribution history". I've been editing Wikipedia for well over the space of a year, having had extensive time to become aquainted with its policies and procedures. TTN has been engaging in a massive number of article merges without bothering to seek a consensus from the editors, choosing instead to ignore reasonable discussion and, in all honesty, be rather rude in his edits. I've violated absolutely no policy (you can see the 3RR log), and I attempted to talk to him about his edits to no avail. Furthermore, during the period where I reverted TTN, there were no other editors at all who were "disputing the encyclopaedic value" of the articles- on the contrary, my edit version was upheld by no less than an administrator User:Matthew and multiple users such as User:Giantdevilfish, who realized that TTN's actions were contrary to Wikipedia's ideals regarding consensus. I can't see how my few reverts to a slight minority of the articles TTN's changed have been "disruptive"- certainly not as disruptive as the massive list that TTN unilaterally performed without bothering to even talk to the many users who had contributed to the articles. Furthermore, I believe that the blocking admin, User:JzG, shouldn't have performed those actions, because he was directly involved in the edit "dispute". He's blocked so that the versions of the page that he likes can "stay", which would most certainly be a conflict of interest. Is User:Matthew similarily blocked for reverting? Or any of the other users who don't feel that major characters should have their information shoved into a single, ugly tiny page without having extensive debate on the subject? Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Edit warring is a no-no. Please do not do it again. Sean William 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Would you like to take this opportunity to discuss? You are the only person who cares about them (openly at least). Matthew was just reverting episode articles, and accidentally undid those. The other guy seems neutral. Instead of forcing an unneeded discussion, let's just take care of it. TTN 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 76.28.138.83 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: - auburnpilot talk 23:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry to see you go

I enjoyed working with you on SNES, and I'm sorry some wikijerks had to make Wikipedia unfun for you. Now who will help ensure the reliability of my sources? ;) Anomie 00:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I cant believe you left..... you were so cool.......Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shucks.

Too bad. Hate it when some admins decide that Wikipedia and all who edit it must follow their rule, and block anyone who defies them (and don't even bother with the COI rule - after all, admins are above silly things such as "basic standards"). - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I know!!!65.9.203.93 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BlackPS3Bright.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BlackPS3Bright.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Nv8200p talk 18:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SonyFlightStick.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SonyFlightStick.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've got a proposal for you...

Yeah, the English language Wikipedia is definitely no fun at all. I'd say it's due to the fact that English is easily the most common language of the Internet, therefore this is the one which everyone gravitates towards.

Me personally, my passion is the Old English language wiki, which can be found here. As long as articles are written in Old English, and dont contain utter BS, then everything's good there.

Perhaps you could try learning the Anglo-Saxon Old English language, and writing there :) I'm a gamer myself, and I could sure use assistance from someone as authoritative as you are on the topic. If it sounds interesting to you, just contact me here. I guarantee it'll be enjoyable for you once again :) —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)