No worries! I really appreciate you doin this. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any context with this score? [1] I'd like to add old reviews to the article. « ₣M₣ » 18:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:List of fictional badgers#Incident at Hawk's Hill. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for your contribution. The score for Golden Sun is 34, but I don't know the means of "Pt.2." (in ref). I'm learning English now, so could you tell me it's full spelling. Thank you!--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you. As I said earlier, I disagree with the outcome from a strategic perspective regarding the future of the article, but I hold community-based decision-making in higher regard than I do my own biases. In a word, I don't agree with the majority says in this matter, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it. Happy editing to you too. -Thibbs (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continually vandalising this page?
Yet again Rovers are NOT known as "the" Shamrock Rovers.
Paddy Coad reluctantly took over the manager's job and this is a direct quote from the book "The Hoops" by Paul Doolan and Robert Goggins.
Do you know what a dead link means? That is why I have put in a live link for Jim McLaughlin.
Yet again read the context of the Pat Byrne text. Your version does not make sense.
Again the first game in the RDS was on the 30th of September 1990. This is referenced quite clearly in the book above. The date is wrong in "We Are Rovers". This book is a fans book. "The Hoops" is the official history of the club. I hope this clears it up for you because it is not hard to understand.
Grateful if you could stop interfering with this page and leave it to fans of the club who know what they are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.102.9 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its Rovers. End of story.
Your behaviour is childish as you refuse to read or accept when somebody is trying to improve this article: Yet again read the context of the Pat Byrne text. Your version does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.250.120 (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no cover up or conspiracy. The only nonsense is your refusal to accept the truth. It is not how I speak. Only americans refer to the club as the Rovers. To everyone else its Rovers.
Newsflash: READ THE CONTEXT OF THE PAT BYRNE TEXT. Your version has bad english. How can you not understand this? I am after explaining this to you repeatedly.
As for the tags they are not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.250.120 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You care enough to get it wrong over and over. Learn basic english: READ THE CONTEXT OF THE PAT BYRNE TEXT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.102.9 (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thibbs. So I know for a while there you were providing Famitsu scores. I was wondering if by any chance could help me with getting the score for Star Ocean, the SNES version in particular. Wasn't sure how you were getting them, but if you could find out, or show me how to find out if it were an online database or something, I'd appreciate it. If you can't, no big deal. Let me know some time. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are you doing? I've still been working on and off with the fictional animal lists and I think I might've run into a slight problem. You know how I've been splitting the lists by media, and then creating sub-articles when needed... Well I started tackling the List of dragons in popular culture, trying to organize and maintain the list by creating List of dragons which is better than the former (I think) but my problem is List of dragons in literature already exists (and is far from a bad article, probably one of the better lists of fictional animal articles I've come across). The only problem is, I personally feel that it's more of a "List of literary references to dragons" or possibly "List of books with dragons in them" because it's listed by publication date rather than character name. So what do you think? Should this article be renamed or reworked? or should I (when needed) create an article List of dragon characters in literature to avoid the problem altogether? Can these two (related but still distinct) lists exist side-by-side? Or, more importantly, should they?
Thanks for the help. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thibbs, just wondering if you have the following GameFan reviews and if you might have time to send/summarise them:
Ah, very interesting. I'd actually been intending to start expanding Soviet Strike myself in the near future. As such I do have ready access all of the material you've requested and I'd be glad to pass them on. I could either summarize the contents or I could just make scans for you and let you figure out how best to present the material. Either way works for me so let me know what's easiest for you.
Regarding Soviet Strike, I also have an earlier review of the PlayStation version in the Dec 1996 issue of GameFan (#48) if you're interested. Let me know about that as well.
In addition (and honestly one of the big reasons I was interested in expanding these), I have access to a review of Soviet Strike that appeared in the Russian magazine "Great Drakon". Great Drakon was arguably Russia's best-known and largest gaming magazine from the 1990s and its review of Soviet Strike seems to me to be a fascinating opportunity to expand Wikipedia's coverage with an intimate reaction to the characterizations presented in the article. Its use in the article would also provide a very good illustration of: "when a game depicts Y country or aspects of it, then reviews from Y country can provide reliable, detailed, and direct reaction to the depiction". If you're interested then I could either send you a scan of this as well or if you aren't familiar with cyrillic script then I could summarize this for inclusion in the article. My Russian is far from perfect, but I've already made an attempted translation so I'd be glad to share it. Let me know what works best for you.
I'm excited to see how it turns out so keep me posted! -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'll probably need a translation of that Russian article... I can probably figure out Portuguese, but not Russian, haha. Also, I've just realised that sadly Guyinblack hasn't edited for about 6 months so if you you could also send me the Retrogamer feature, that'd be great. Thanks again, bridies (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Strike is finally up (side-tracked by some ocean-deep ANI stuff the last couple of weeks). I think I probably messed up the citation for Great Drakon... I also didn't take that much from it - obviously not being all that confident with the language - other than the fact it praised this or that. Feel free to add more. Anyway, on a related note, I'm still trying to finish up the Strike and Cannon Fodder series and as such would love: the Cannon Fodder (Atari Jaguar version) review in GameFan 25 (Vol 3, Issue 1; Dec 1995), and the Urban Strike review in GameFan 22 (Vol 2, Issue 10; Oct 1994); if you get time. Thanks again, bridies (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thibbs,
I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.
For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at [email protected]. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!
Thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Next time just live an informative comment in the edit summary so that all this can be traced and evaluated. Reverting other editor's comments in talk is serious business. Diego (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment at SVT struck me as interesting, specifically how you describe the edits as "automatic" because I've suspected there might be some of that going on. Let me elaborate. About a year or two ago (I don't remember exactly when) I came across a very prolific editor from the Houston area doing date changes (sometimes just adding more specific dates that were either wrong, or just couldn't be verified), and there were some other edits that were similar that pretty much guaranteed they were deliberate errors. What's more is this editor had multiple IPs, like on the order of dozens. Some were probably the home IP, others were mobile providers (where IPs hop), and others were a local school. So there was a clear profile of this editor. What's strange is that they'd been doing this (and getting warned, sporadically) from these various ranges for years before I noticed it. What's more, when they were blocked, they'd start editing again within sometimes hours of the block expiring--this was on 6 month and 1 year blocks in some cases. I kept after it for a while, and I still monitor a few IPs. I doubt they've quit but I haven't seen the exact pattern of that editor for a while.
Anyway, that experience, and others similar to it (including one that involved cartoon articles), lead me to not trust the majority of dates associated with "release dates" and other similar hard to verify dates. I don't think there's a pending solution other than addressing them as they come up. A policy that required verifiability for certain classes of facts would be a step in the right direction, but I don't see that happening soon.
I share your skepticism, and while I suppose many of these editors are adding data in good faith, they need to explain where they're getting it from. Editors that add or change random factual data that is very hard to verify, and do a lot of it, without explaining where they're getting it from should be suspect until verified. But you'll probably get opposition from people too who don't understand how pervasive this kind of vandalism is.
Keep up the good work, if I get a chance I'll try to look at it too and see if there are others. But without a full fledged SPI and a lot of detective work it can be hard to track down the affected articles. Shadowjams (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hows the editing going? Having fun on Wikipedia? --UnhappyandNoFriends (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent to your recent edits neither the Galaga nor the Galaxian article has any reception section, however according to Wikipedia:VG/MOS#Essential content a reception section ranks among the "minimum set of standard elements" for video game articles. Your edit summaries here and here suggest that the only reception valid for these articles is reception of the arcade version. But I don't think that this is consistent with any of the other video game articles on Wikipedia (e.g. with Halo: Combat Evolved (an FA) we see that the reception section covers both PC and Xbox versions; similarly with Sonic Heroes we see the reception section covering GameCube, PC, PS2, and Xbox versions, and at Mass Effect 2 we see reception coverage including PC, PS3, and Xbox 360).
So I'm wondering if this is an inconsistently applied Arcade Task Force rule that I don't know about? And here I say "inconsistently applied" because there are many arcade game articles whose reception sections cover different versions, ports, and remakes (e.g. In Tetris the reception section covers the PC, Mac, Spectrum, and Amiga versions; similarly at Bubble Bobble we see the reception section covering both Game Boy and Spectrum versions, and at Double Dragon we see the reception section covering NES, PC, C64, and Mega Drive versions). Or is this really just a matter of keeping "classic" games "pure"? Keeping in mind that a reception section is one of the most basic standard elements of a gaming article, is there any reason that Galaga and Galaxian should be operating under different conventions than the rest of the gaming articles on Wikipedia? Certainly the reception section should not be 100% about a remake, but doesn't it make more sense to just add an {{Expand section}} template to the reception section for now until other reliably sourced scores can be located? -Thibbs (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader I would expect the reception section of an article about an arcade game to be about the reception of the actual arcade game not its ports. Consider the ports of 1980s arcade games were never of the same quality as the arcade game because home console/home computer hardware of the time was inadequate to fully reproduce the same graphics and sound so the reception of the ports would not be the same as the reception of the original arcade game (consider Pac-Man on the Atari 2600). Game Boy and Spectrum are good examples of this. The Game Boy is unable to adequately reproduce even the simplest of arcade games and the Spectrum is barely better, plus the Spectrum is an obscure system so this really doesn't provide very useful information to the reader. Arcade games should be considered differently from console video games. Consider arcade games which were uncommon, rare or unreleased prototypes, they wouldn't have a reception being rare or unreleased. As for Galaxian and Galaga they are definitely arcade games and I really don't see where the reception of their ports are relevant. If you find something that you can cite regarding the reception of the actual arcade games then by all means add it. As for Bubble Bobble, that section should be removed. It seems that a Spectrum fan has been adding similar entries to many video games articles.
Note there is no mention of the necessity of a reception section in the Arcade Task Force article guidelines so I would think that if a game originated as an arcade game then those guidelines should apply. Asmpgmr (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asmpgmr, you've repeatedly asserted that it is well known that all ports and remakes of the classic arcade games are rubbish and that they would obviously have been received more poorly. But this information doesn't appear in the article so the only way someone would know this is through the personal knowledge they bring to the article. Keep in mind that some of the readers here don't even remember the events of September 11. What's the harm in documenting the fact that the remakes were inferior with reliable sources? It makes little sense to me. Similarly, your assertions that the new information that was added "tells readers absolutely nothing at all" and that it "contribute nothing to the 'full story' of the game" is an extremely subjective comment. What you mean to say is that this information told you nothing at all and that it didn't contribute to your full understanding of the games. What is the problem that you are envisioning here? That the reception section will cover all of the ports and expand so much that it wrests the focus from the arcade original and centers it only on the remakes? Or perhaps you're concerned that the reader will get the false impression that the game was a rather terrible game after all because its remakes were scored too poorly? I don't find either scenario likely and I think the obvious solution to both would be to increase sourcing related to the original arcade version.
The fact that the 2008 FA, Space Invaders, does not have a reception section doesn't explain why the WP:VG/MOS should be ignored in the case of Galaxian and Galaga. No reception section is required if no reception exists, but if reception does exist then a reception section is strongly recommended according to WP:VG. That some arcade games don't have ports/remakes to cover in the reception section is not an issue here. Nobody is saying that port/remake reception coverage is required for all articles, but I am saying that if a port/remake has been reviewed then the proper place to report this reliable fact is on the article devoted to the game even if the game happens to have begun life in an arcade cabinet. And even though you think it adds nothing, WP:VG would seem to disagree. -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add in to this, generally in the past (and per previous discussions on the matter in regards to listing ports in the infobox) articles on arcade first titles are usually slanted towards the arcade. Hence the relevant arcade hardware info in the infobox and major part of the history, introduction/reception of the game, etc. That is also preciseley why the listing of ports in the infobox is supposed to be done via an expandable list to focus on the intro platform first (which is the consensus I was explained after the last discussion). That does not, however, preclude discussion of reception of ports if those ports do not have their own article. If they do not have their own article, than the main article - even if it is mainly about the arcade game - is the only place to include the reception of those ports. However, it should be clearly set up in a ports section vs. mixed in to the reception of the main platform of the article itself. And I can see Asmpgmr's issue if there is only reception of a specific port discussed in the article and not for the main platform - or in some cases just listings of reviews for that port such as what's going on in Gauntlet II or RoadBlasters (prose is always preferred over lists). But in that case the solution should be to rework the ports in to more of a prose and mention those reviews in relation to the reception of that port vs. remove it completely. Expand rather than cut. Likewise to find reception for the main platform as well if it's not present. As far as Space Invaders, I was involved in helping to bring that to GA and FA. There is indeed a 'reception' section in there, it's just been termed 'Impact and Legacy' instead because of how the content was covered. Just as 'ports' are under 'Remakes and Sequels.' Hope that helps the discussion a little. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Asmpgmr. Everyone who has been discussing matters here has said that they can see where you're coming from. And I can also understand that you are concerned that articles on classic arcade games should be focused on the game as a cultural artifact embedded in its proper history. In other words the main focus should be on the original version of the game when it had the most important impact on culture and society. But this doesn't mean that the article must be restricted to this topic. Adding details like giving specific reliably sourced examples to show how the game has changed and been adapted as it has been remade for later generations is information that is relevant to a full explication of the topic. Critical reception sections can be phrased in such a way that it is clear to the reader that the original game was lauded and the later incarnations were considered inferior. If the reception section is well written this shouldn't detract from the game in any way.
Both your views that (1) the only thing that counts as the "real" or "actual" game is the original version and that (2) even broad RS-based critical reception sections are inherently biased, are contrary to the community consensus here at Wikipedia. I want to assure you that nobody is interested in using this reception section as a way of subtly undermining the game or as an insidious tool to change the focus to the later history of the game. Rather, the reception section for these articles should serve as a way to tell a richer history of the games in a few words and figures without cluttering up the main body of the article. I really hope we can come to an understanding here because I don't think this is an issue worth all this fuss. -Thibbs (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting tired of discussing this with you Thibbs, you continue to take my words out of context and attempt to twist them to your own POV and you outright ignore what I say about having an objective reception in an encyclopedic article. I have absolutely NO interest in subjective text or "adding color" to articles and will not support this. Honestly I feel your argument is based in your own personal desire to add reviews for ports of games on a platform you are a fan of (Game Boy) from some old obscure magazines which you have. You are doing the same thing as the anonymous editor with the Spectrum games: bending guidelines to push your own subjective POV which is apparently to increase the profile of your favorite platform. In stark contrast I'm interested in just the facts NOT opinions. Reviews are just the opinions of whomever wrote the review and does not reflect on the overall reception as different people like different things.
As for your constant argument that ports of arcade games are the same as the arcade game. This is ridiculous, they are ports and obviously different code written for a different platform. By your questionable rules then should Space Invaders Part II be considered the same as Space Invaders and not its sequel ? Should the knock-offs Cosmic Monsters, IPM Invaders and Space Fever be considered Space Invaders ? They obviously look like Space Invaders and were made to cash in on the success of Space Invaders. Do you seriously consider Pac-Man for the Atari 2600 the same as Pac-Man ? Your arguments are purely POV and not based in facts or technical accuracy. Asmpgmr (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've hit an impasse here. Which means that it's time to get help if we want to resolve this issue. Asmpgmr, what do you think about the idea of posing this question to WT:VG to see what the community has to say? Would you agree to that? -Thibbs (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Thibbs. Do you own the Famicom Tsūshin magazines? Cheers. --Hydao (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
my scanner is currently not working, but I took two photographs of the article in question, I hope that's fine as well :) It's not a big article though. I'm not sure if you can decipher German, if not then let me know and I'll provide a rough translation Here are the images:
--Darkstar (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second of Wikipedia Five pillars: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
BULLSHIT !!
Well it seems that Wikipedia does NOT take its own policies about having a neutral point of view seriously and is truly a joke. I was warned not to waste my time with Wikipedia because it is not a professional peer reviewed encyclopedia and simply caters to a mob mentality. Too bad as it has the potential to be a great resource but disregarding objectivity makes it a non-trustworthy source. Just because a majority of people say something doesn't necessarily mean it is right. Consider a majority of people in the U.S. believes in primitive nonsense involving an invisible sky daddy deity and don't accept the scientific fact of evolution - their religious beliefs are a stupid position and should NOT be acknowledged or respected regardless of them being a majority. I have other information which I would have contributed after sorting through it but I have absolutely no intention of doing so now. I am done with Wikipedia as I see no reason to continue contributing to a sham encyclopedia which doesn't take its own policies seriously and would rather encourage the foolish and subjective editing of the stupid likes of someone like you who couldn't care less about objectivity, have their own stupid inane agendas to push and can only hide behind dubious "rules" like a sniveling little spineless coward because they have no real technical knowledge or ability. I have some other information which I would have contributed but will not since you proven that you are a bunch of unappreciative asses. Obviously not all users fall into this category but clearly Wikipedia likes the stupid little drones who congregate like a bunch of moronic bible belt fundies to form their silly little consensus of the month and simply quote the bogus nonsense "rules" without any critical thought. I am sure you losers will consider this a win because you got rid of what you see as a disruptive user but it is not. Alienating knowledgeable people who care about objectivity and want to help is really stupid and illogical and only serves to diminish Wikipedia in the long run.
If you want to know what you really are then remove the two 'B's from your username and rearrange the letters.
Don't bother replying I AM DONE and will never return. Asmpgmr (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You happened to get me at a good time: http://imgur.com/a/DOxzj Andrevan@ 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is something I want to ask and get some feedback. In the various lists of fictional organisms, the Literature, Film, Animation and other sections are in different orders on different articles. It would be nice if they were all in one convenient order for the sake of consistency. How do you think the orders should be done?
Either way sections like Other always go at the bottom. Deltasim (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your way is best because indeed written and drawn material differs from animated material and filmed material and so on. However I have another question:
Puppetry sort of confuses me, because it's a hand puppet or string puppet filmed in sequence of a live action scene (e.g. The Muppets) OR it's a clay figure or marionette filmed in stop-motion (e.g. Frog and Toad). I think sequenced puppets should go in Film and Television and stop-motion puppets should go in Animation. CGI graphics of course count as Animation, not Film or Television, which mostly apply to live action animals. Deltasim (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you're confused about Street Fighter II': Special Champion Edition. Officially Capcom considers Special Champion Edition to be the Genesis port of the arcade's Champion Edition. In reality, it's actually a compilation of both, Champion Edition and Hyper Fighting, much like Street Fighter II Turbo on the SNES.
From what I remember reading at magazines at the time, Sega wanted Hyper Fighting features in their port of Champion Edition, but Capcom already had an agreement with Nintendo to have Street Fighter II Turbo as an SNES-exclusive, so they just kept the Champion Edition name and added the word "Special" to the title.
I've included all information about the Genesis version of Special Champion Edition in the Hyper Fighting article for this reason. I hope that helps you understand it better. To be honest, I'm still not certain whether Special Champion Edition info should be on the Champion Edition article or on Hyper Fighting. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Thibbs. I'm pretty new to WP, so I didn't realize (until looking at the edit history and seeing that nearly all the edits are yours :)) that YOU should be making any additions to the VG reliable sources list. As soon as I realized the error, I was going to revert it, but it looks like someone else beat me to it. I'm sorry I jumped the gun... just got excited that one of my ideas was being listened to! ;) Monicabgalvarez (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally intrude on other people's conversations, but I noticed a question you asked on Kirill's talk page that I may be able to answer. There are database reports ranking WikiProjects by number of articles, changes to articles, and number of editors watching the project's page. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to compare project membership since each project handles their membership lists differently and many lists are rarely updated to take into account members that have become inactive. Hope this helps! –Mabeenot (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I finished copy editing your piece. I have to say I found it quite interesting, although I think it was a bit too exuberant in places and tried to tone it down some. It actually inspired me to start putting together, if not exactly a newsletter, then at least an annual report for another project I basically run by myself, as a way to hopefully increase project activity. Anyway, I suppose the next step would be to contact User:MuZemike and see if he's okay with including it in the Newsletter, then sending it out. —Torchiest talkedits 14:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, I wonder if you all think it would be appropriate to note in the newsletter that I'm holding a competition to get a video game article to FA class, with the price being a free copy of Civ 5. Why? Because I have an extra copy of Civ 5. See the link for details. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, the magazines you have... do they have info about the canceled SFC game J-League Soccer Ole! Supporters? Here is the flyer: http://www.gamengai.com/bn_inf.php?id=933 --Hydao (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! The fliers you posted clearly have Dec 95 as the projected release date. I don't know I missed that. Anyway I found a different version of one of the fliers in the Sep. 15, 1995 edition (p73). I'll keep looking again later tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do it tonight. Hope you're not too disappointed, though. They are very similar. The only differences may be layout. The blog idea is interesting, but at this point I don't really have the time. I do plan to go through the magazines I have and make the contents available for the WP:VG Reference Library in the near future, though. Once I've done that then anybody can just skim through the magazine's listed contents and if they find material they are interested in using for Wiki articles then they can make a request. I'm glad to make articles available for nonprofit educational purposes relating to critical commentary. -Thibbs (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thibbs, just wanted to let you know I answered your NP article requests on my talk page. Unfortunately there's not much there. Pagrashtak 22:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just noticed as an off that we have flooded the AfD page with our debate (lol) anyway as we will continue... --Olowe2011 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all honesty do you think the official website for a group of internet trolls is going to be safe for users from Wikipedia. I think its better to side on caution and remove the link. It has been known for this group to use IP attacks ect after all so i'm not sure we could consider the link safe for anyone. It also states in the policy I referred to that links might not be added unless the organisation / company is large (but I used that as a base reason to remove) However, as stated above I really wouldn't recommend keeping the link. I say this out of experience. (PLEASE NOTE: Could you post any response to my talk page with same RE thanks) Regards,
--Olowe2011 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Due to your clearly demonstrating skills in making a quality and well sourced article it would be amazing to see you re-create an appropriate and correctly named article Music Boulevard. I am sure you will do a great job and I look forward to seeing this article. As for this one it looks like a advertising pitch if you don't take a brief look and look into it in more detail you might find you agree with my comments. But as I said if you created that article as a history to this it would be great. (PLEASE NOTE: It would be preferred for you to respond to this on my talk page using the same RE format. Regards, --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was scrolling through the list and my laptop screen starting glitching like crazy. And since I clicked the link for game informer- it deleted. It's fixed now I think. Sorry bout that. DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input at MusstMike's page, I've re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovers Forever. GiantSnowman 23:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your goal to tag every single article on wiki? Serious question. If you do grateful if you could take care not to delete information in articles. 178.167.219.247 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But according you every article has problems. I have had a look at your contributions and boy you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Perhaps you could then do what the tags need. That sockpuppeteting sounds like stalking. 31.200.168.45 (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dont be so patronising. You have way way more time than anybody here so you are more than welcome to fix those problems that you create. Please explain how the edits are harmful. I have made positive contributions to articles. If you think that is harmful perhaps you could log out.31.200.166.69 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is truly remarkable that you could consider anybody having more free time than you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Thibbs&offset=&limit=500&target=Thibbs
And you went to the trouble of actually counting edits!!31.200.166.69 (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you say that I can keep using my email account without fears? Thank you for your answer. Kennuser (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it does exist, check the "exists" part, and there says that the account was created on August 1, 2006. Kennuser (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm planning on doing some work on Destruction Derby, and I was wondering if you could provide scans for the previews for the game in GameFan July 1995 and Dec. 1996. If you can spare the time, the material would be hugely appreciated. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thibbs, how are you? Hope everything is fine. :) If you don't mind, let me ask you a question: does your magazines have something about SD F-1 Grand Prix? If/when you reply, please do it on your talk page, because I'm watching it. Thanks in advance. - Hydao (I was blocked temporarily for a stupid and kinda unfair reason) --92.250.93.116 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bought the Parker/Hasbro Rock-It back in 2002 as a christmas present for my sister... then found something else (I don't know what), so it ended up sitting on top of the wardrobe for 10 years.
I noticed from your contributions, there is some dispute about this product.
I have just listed mine on eBay... with a picture of the front and back of the blister packaging... not a box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.35.204.163 (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I believe when I was filling it out, I was just going by the logic that the developers would have been responsible for creating the image, and therefor the copyright holders? But, it appears you're correct about the copyright listed. I've gone ahead and listed both companies, though, just in case. —SpaceCow4 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asher196, I notice that in this edit you've recently reverted an edit I had made earlier today where I had added a link to the other platforms this game has been released for. I see that you left an edit summary (The infobox in this case is for the original arcade release.) but I don't understand it. Is this a rule for all games that have an arcade release or only for the Galaga article? And is this actually a rule or is it just a local consensus? The reason I ask is that although I've edited a lot of video game articles in the past I've never seen this sort of a limitation to the platform field of the "Infobox VG" template. From looking at the examples provided in Template:Infobox video game it seems that listing multiple platforms is often permitted. Am I missing something? -Thibbs (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thibbs - I'm currently overhauling the Legacy of Kain series' articles, and you're listed as a contact for material on the original, PlayStation version of Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain in DieHard GameFan. If you have time and it's not inconvenient, could I please ask you to send along any scans or things you might have from the relevant magazines? The reference library lists that there's a feature in issue #44. updates in #45 and a review in #46. I'm particularly interested in the latter, but anything would be highly, highly appreciated. Thanks very much for all your efforts! --LoK Wiki (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Games 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civilization (game) (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) 12:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted your redirect at Torres (tabletop game) and replaced the link at Games 100 to the correct link Torres (board game). Jeepday (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thibbs - no bother about the "curly quotes", and I do not get offended when others amend my incorrect edits. My fun on wikipedia is adding sources, especially stuff from old newspapers, to history articles. Unfortunately I am slapdash about following correct editing procedure: but on the other hand, I try hard to make my quotes accurate. Swings and roundabouts:) RLamb (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, is this site "reliable"? For the past months (or years) I saw gvnayr adding/flooding the reception thing from Allgame, but when I visit the pages I see nothing useful in there. Only some crappy screenshots, "AMG Rating" and nothing more... honestly, even GameFAQs is better, can't even compare. --Hydao (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thibbs. We are getting close to the end of the year which means its almost close to the new Newsletter. Do you have any ideas for the Feature section? GamerPro64 16:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thibbs, when you have a minute please check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chiky%C5%AB_Kaih%C5%8D_Gun_ZAS ... do you know someone here on Wikipedia who owns old magazines about Game Boy stuff? --Hydao (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a COI, it's called an opinion. ;-) Diego (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re. about the "most of..." sentence Diego (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
