User talk:Tyros1972/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Categorization

It has nothing to do about whether I think the album is a comedy album or not, it has to do with all Tube Bar albums already being categorized as Category:Prank call albums, which is already a child category of Category:Comedy albums, which means all albums categorized as prank call albums are also being categorized as comedy albums by default. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, I did not realize that but makes sense. Tyros1972 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC))

File:Album tubebarvl2013.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Album tubebarvl2013.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Album tubebarv22013.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Album tubebarv22013.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Explicit (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) 11:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Legacy of Kain

Hi, just regarding your recent Legacy of Kain edit... No, Blood Omen 2 doesn't strictly take place after Soul Reaver 2, but it does *pick up* after SR2 (exact wording). It's not easy to sum up in a few sentences, but in short, at the end of SR2 there is a time paradox. Everything in BO2 is the product of that time paradox. In that sense BO2 doesn't really take place between BO1 and SR1, because its events literally don't exist as part of the backstory of those games. This information is not in BO2 but is established in developer interviews. The second paragraph of this section covers it to an extent. I am happy to give some more in-depth sources, if you like. --LoK Wiki (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No you're right about that. I didn't think of it in that aspect just went by what the title screen stated.Tyros1972 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Orko

Thanks for leaving me a warning message, realizing you were wrong, and then not bothering to apologize. 68.55.123.86 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry about that and should have apologized. Yes I see why you removed it and agree after I carefully re-read it. Tyros1972 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engrish (2nd nomination), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Wikipedia is not censored against "racist" slang. The sources in the article include several reliable books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your biased and irrelevant warning, I can do the same to you. I fail to see how I violated any rules except to "offend" you. Please don't give me silly warnings just to harass me or I will report it to an admin as it is a waste of both of our times. Or perhpas I should say it in "Engrish" so you understand? (Frank you wery ruch!) Tyros1972 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to INgrooves may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

ESA Article

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Entertainment Software Association may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed it but please double check. Thanks. Tyros1972 Talk 04:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tyros. I double checked and the ESA is located in Washington D.C. Also, you should review the sourcing rules. The blog you posted is not considered a credible source under Wikipedia guidelines. Loganman86 (talk) Do you have a source that is not self-published and from a reputable website or news outlet that you can use instead? 00:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

you seem to know a lot about wiki rules for someone who just registered today and has only edited the ESA article to reflect "positive" views. I will be watching this account as it maybe one created for ESA promotion. Tyros1972 Talk 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tyros. I only removed your article and claim about the location of ESA because they do not come from credible sources. Reputable sources place the ESA in Washington D.C., but the personal blog you posted doesn't fit Wikipedia sourcing criteria. There also aren't any reputable sources that name Edward Heldman III as a DRM expert. Is there a source we can use to keep this on the page? Loganman86 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you just register today? Why so concerned about bad PR about the ESA? Can you enlighten me? Surely you know wiki rules very well BUT just today decided to register and just today focus on the ESA in a positive way? Tyros1972 Talk 01:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Been reading the Wiki rules for awhile now and wanted to start adding content over the next generation of games consoles. ESA/E3 pages are bare bones and looks like a place that could use some touching up to practice since most gaming pages are full-up or locked down. I have no problem with negative articles appearing on the page, but won't your article get removed? It doesn't seem to fit the rules, but please let me know. I'd rather be informed. No intending to start an edit war. Loganman86 (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: INgrooves

Hi mate! Yeah, I didn't disagree with that tag but removed it after taking the staff and some of the history out of the lede. I've moved that all into the "history" section so it reads less like a press release or advertisement. It still needs more work and a couple of those issues tags are still relevant so I left them there. I've added some sources and will move those into the article when I have a chance. Stalwart111 07:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

OK sounds good to me. Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it. Tyros1972 Talk 07:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries! You should think about enabling the Twinkle tools if you are going to nominate other things for deletion. Those tools have a one-click XfD function that does everything for you and adds those templates automatically. Stalwart111 07:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Yes these will come in helpful, when I find articles that I think should be nominated, and especially with vandalism. Thanks! Tyros1972 Talk 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi again! I've hidden the section you added to the article today and thought I should leave you a note here explaining why (I haven't deleted it so it can be reinstated when it has been fixed). The problem with that info is that it makes a fairly serious legal claim about the company and suggests wrongdoing which we obviously can't include in the article unless it can be verified by reliable sources. I can see you went to some effort to try and verify the claims but the sources you added simply aren't reliable. One was just a Google search with no particular source cited. Particular results might be good sources (if you can cite them properly) but just a random Google search (which might change from day-to-day) is not a reliable source. Likewise, a YouTube video from an unknown/random user is not a reliable source, no matter what they might say in the video. The problem is that videos like that can be created by anyone, claiming anything they like, with no editorial oversight (something we generally require of reliable sources). I could just as easily create a "counter-video" claiming the opposite, as could you. For claims like that we really would need a strong news article source. If you can find one, then by all means, cite that instead and reinstate the claim. Otherwise, it really would be problematic to include it for now. Stalwart111 01:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's a good point. I will look for RS, maybe Chillingeffects.org or EFF? I know what you mean most of these are complaints by users and they have may have been settled. Tyros1972 Talk 01:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Chilling Effects source a lot of their content (perhaps ironically) from syndicated news sources and reprint quite a few articles (with permission I hope!). If you find an article there, perhaps try to find the original version online and cite that. Citing it from the Chilling Effects site might be okay, but the location might change creating deadlink problems later. The Electronic Frontier Foundation produces much of their own content, though they link to news articles of relevance. It would likely depend on the sort of claim they are making and who the article was written by (staff writer or random online community contributor). Settled disputes can still be included, we should probably just note that they were settled and any terms that were made public. But we would still need an RS for that anyway. Stalwart111 03:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the template mate! You are the best! There is http://eheldman3.blogspot.com/ concerning it from the YouTube video, the rest seem to all be on google forums and other public forums. http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/dwiK8Z9AsJ0, http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/MNrbfdcWvNs. I don't know if any is really irelevant? I know a lot companies have done this, but INgrooves doesn't seem to be on the top of the list. Again they are mentioned here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny3pMGFnwMQ. Tyros1972 Talk 04:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, blogs don't make for great sources (again, anyone can write one), forums are a general not okay (same reason) and the YouTube video would be a problem (as earlier). For a less significant claim or for something factual or completely innocuous, some of those might be okay. But the claim in question is that the company has made false claims or has otherwise tried to do something unethical. That sort of thing requires really strong sourcing, especially since we identify individual directors/staff in the article (see WP:BLP). Stalwart111 04:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be especially wary given that blog post was uploaded about 45 minutes ago - about ten minutes before you posted your last comment here and with the same links you posted here half an hour earlier. I'm not sure if you have a connection to that blogger or if someone else is working on the same thing as you at exactly the same time, but it just goes to show that anyone can post anything they like on those blogs and that we should avoid using them as sources here. Stalwart111 04:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, if I see anything reliable I'll check with you but not going to go a hunt for it. No connection to that but was following that and a few other videos and that was updated with that link, but since all of that is no good I will cease watching it. I don't have anything personal against INgrooves but I do have a thing against articles using Wiki for advertisement, if that's the case, as I said this is just one article and no biggie. Thanks again. Tyros1972 Talk 05:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. And yeah, I wasn't suggesting there was a connection (and even if there was, what you do away from WP is your business), I just have no way of knowing and there's obviously some current interest in the company (what with the deletion, then DRV, recreation and now AfD). Even more reason to be careful! Stalwart111 07:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know. What deletion? The article was deleted and recreated? I added the AFD as it looked like a company advertising on wiki and did a google search on them and most I ran across was YouTube stuff. Other then that not sure of what is going on? If they were deleted then why was it recreated? Perhaps some people are against them for other reasons? Tyros1972 Talk 08:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it has a long history:

• The article was created back in 2007 by someone with the same username as the company.
• It was nominated for speedy deletion at least twice over subsequent years.
• It was nominated for speedy deletion again in March this year, but this time that nomination was accompanied by a post at the administrator's noticeboard - here.
• The editor who was the subject of that ANI post was blocked for spamming WP with stuff about this and a bunch of other companies.
• The article (and some of the blocked spammer's other articles) were speedy deleted.
• An IP editor then took the deleted page to Deletion Review - here.
• It was subsequently recreated when that DRV discussion overturned the speedy deletion.
• You then nominated it for deletion - here.

So this whole mess has been going on for a long time, but I don't think anyone ever tested it at AFD, which is probably what should have happened from the very start. So you should be commended for being the one who finally did so! Stalwart111 10:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah now I see what you were talking about, I didn't mean to stick my nose in this mess mate lol It sounds like the company is behind this article for "advertising" and "promotion" which is what my suspicion was. Usually they are rather pointless and positive etc. I have nominated many for deletion over the years. When i see articles that look like that I will do so. I had no idea about all this history behind it. Tyros1972 Talk 21:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW I just enabled Twinkle tools that was easy. I just have to read the documentation and practice on my sandbox, but this will come in handy reporting users who keep vandalizing or ask for protection of a page etc.

Yeah, those are cool. I'm actually glad you "stuck your nose into it". I don't think it would have been tested with an AfD (or cleaned up as a result) had you not nominated it. I think it will probably be kept but it's silly for an article to last that long, with that many attempts at deletion, without any real clean-up effort from non-COI editors. A couple tried last time it was tagged for speedy deletion but there's only so much that will be done without the motivation of an AfD to push it along. Stalwart111 23:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what we try to do in keeping wiki clean as possible. Yeah looks like it will be kept, maybe for the better if it will just be re-created anyway. So now it can hopefully be cleaned up properly. Tyros1972 Talk 00:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Stalwart111 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)