User:Nifboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nifboy is nifboy. nifboy used to makes Tool-assisted speedruns, and now mostly pokes AWB.

Links for my own use:

Link for your amusement (hopefully):

My to-do list:

  1. Assess The unassessed whenever I have time.
  2. Dig through the released 1-100 copies of Computer Gaming World (here), use to expand articles. I certainly don't need to have played the games; that's what CGW is there for!
    Status: Done with 1987 (#42) issue. (For reference, #100 is Nov. 1992)
    Commentary:
    • I've come across four games so far with the word "galactic" in their title, none of which exist as articles. Just a tiny bit tired of it.
    • There's a two-page feature on M.U.L.E. in the July-August 1983 issue that is almost void of useful content. :(
      • Oop, nevermind, two-page article by lead designer Dan(i) Bunten in the April '84 issue. Ding!
    • Glad to see the WWII games go back this far in history.
    • Ultima III in the Dec. '83 issue needs to be tackled in a sane way
    • I will be SO glad when I get to the modern era where reviews and strategies are given separate distinct sections of a given mag.
    • Crypt of Medea, from the August 1984 (#17) issue, is the first article I've come across that already cites the article I'm looking at (not counting the double-dose of Lode Runner).
    • Man, '85 was a slow year. Two of the first four magazines do not have any corresponding articles.
    • Note: I'm not looking so much at the Amiga/C64 sections, as they devote maybe two paragraphs to a given game.
    • So many reviewers turn off the sound, or complain about not being able to.
    There is a similar archive for Zzap!64, which I won't be trawling through and is questionably legal (compared to CGW which was intentionally released).

Reference for reference:

<ref name = "CGW">{{citation | date = Apr-May 1988 | author = Scorpia | last = Sipe | first = Russell | periodical = [[Computer Gaming World]] | title = IBM Goes to War | year = 1988 | pages = 24-25}}</ref>

Random webcomics thoughts:

  1. I think most of the webcomics that get put up for VfD get deleted simply because the folks who prowl VfD have a low opinion of webcomics in general.
    • I haven't decided now whether that low opinion is merited or not.
  2. I can't remember where I saw this, but this essay is very good.
  3. One way to describe the primary division in Wikipedia is between those who think Wiki should be for everyone, and those who think Wiki should be for everyone else. If I write an article on myself, that's not "for" everyone. It's "for" myself and a tiny handful of others who look me up on Google.
  4. There was a thought here, but it's gone now.
  5. The Comixpedia Wiki has about a thousand articles. Four hundred of those are marked as Wikipedia imports. I have no idea what that means.
  6. Instead of surfing Special:Random, I now surf Wikipedia:Deadend_pages for things to fix.
  7. A good Wikipedia article requires honest-to-Goddess research.
  8. Based on the discussion at WP:WEB, I am now against any criteria based on numbers (Alexa rank, Google whatever, N forum members) as we are indiscriminately allowing in those comics that merely pass criteria. WP:NOT "You must have this many hits to ride".
  9. Wikipedia is not and should not be a place where anything gains recognition: It is a repository of things that have already been recognized.
  10. I like GOOPTI (in the sense that it is both a better explanation and term than "fancruft").
  11. If you create an article for an album, and the only content is its tracklisting, I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN, RIP OFF YOUR HEAD AND (remainder deleted by the Cabal).
    • And the users who do this? They never stop at one. Nooo, they always make three or four, even if there's an article of the same name, only different capitalizations.
      • To avoid having your head ripped off and other unspeakable things done to you? At least include the name of the goddamned artist in the article. SO MUCH HATE.
        • This applies to books and films, too, although they jump into a plot summary which makes it that much easier to Google for.
  12. My latest addiction: N.
  13. "If you want it to be possessive, it's just 'ITS.' But, if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's 'I-T-apostrophe-S, ' scalawag." - Strong Bad
  14. "{{afd}} = {{clean-up}} + steroids" - Brenneman
  15. The WCCAs are not notable worth using to deternime WP:N because I voted in them. Placing any sort of faith in them is trusting, amongst others, people who drew stick figures in high school.
  16. Why is it when the webcomics clique swarms in on an article's AfD, the article almost never improves?
    • Is it possibly because there really isn't anything to say about the topic?
      • (The Whiteboard doesn't count because it was put on AfD four days after creation)
  17. PvP podcast 12 = the entire webcomics/Wikipedia controversy condensed into two hours (well, more like the first hour).
  18. I used to think I knew what was going on around here. Now, not so much so.
    • And then there are days that make me stop and go, "WTF?"
  19. "I have complete confident that the genuinely important ones will be covered by such sources before the publishing deadline." -- Guy aka JzG, on the Wikien-l [1]
  20. WP:WAF is the solution to all life's Wikipedia's (pop culture) problems.
    • Corollary: Any article based on a fictional work could do with a heavy dose of reality.
  21. This user does not believe in infoboxes, nor in describing him/herself in the vaguest third-person terms possible.
  22. Policy pages do not scale. As the amount of attention attracted to a policy grows, so does the chance a fundamental disagreement will be unearthed in detailing it, and it will never go away through normal wiki process.
    • The current list of pages I am aware of so affected: WP:ATT (and by extension V, NOR, and RS), WP:N.
  23. "At best we can write a free "Who's Who" entry, and we're not that kind of project." -- Tony Sidaway
  24. Highlight of the month: an image I uploaded got put on the front page of Kotaku. :D
  25. The in-universe to out-of-universe ratio is directly proportional to the odds of talk page discussion turning towards canon.
    • The longer high ratios are maintained (relative to article traffic), the more likely of said discussion will turn lame.
  26. Avoid telling the same story two or three times across articles (i.e. a book's article, the series's article, and one or more individual character articles). Retelling the same plot from the perspective of five different characters does not make a good encyclopedia.
  27. Regarding the creation and vetting of new articles: Please assume AfD hasn't heard of it and therefore hasn't heard of anyone hearing of it before complaining about the deletion of "obviously" notable topics.
  28. The fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is why there is also Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks (including Wikijunior), Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, and even all the wikis hosted on Wikia.
The CVG Barnstar
GASP, nobody ever gave you this barnstar!?! Well you certainly deserve it! JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 00:40