User talk:KieferSkunk: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Welcome!

Hello, KieferSkunk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Sorry I haven't stayed involved. The truth is that I'm a little hesitant to try to mediate this at all. JAF made it clear that he was going to be difficult to reason with as soon as I popped my head in, and having just finished with a similar case, I'm a little burnt out on stubbornness and emotion.

However, ArbCom isn't likely to accept your case until other measures have been exhausted. I suggest contacting User:NicholasTurnbull for help mediating. I'll be glad to assist that any way I can, or to take over if Nick isn't interested. --Moralis (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll give Nick a nudge probably Thursday if nothing more has happened by then. (I'm going to be offline all day tomorrow for our 4th of July party). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As an Arbitration Committee Clerk, I have removed your request for arbitration based on your statement that you wanted it closed at this time. (As you recognized, the case would have been officially declined within the next day or two anyway.) Regarding the substance of the matter, I am glad the situation has improved at least temporarily, but please feel free to pursue earlier forms of dispute resolution if the problem recurs. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the Welcome message above, all threads dated before July 4th, 2007 have been archived. Please open new discussions here if you'd like to chat with me - thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to ask you to stop putting coals back into (hopefully, extinguished) fire at Talk:Integral. I understand your desire to help, but the effect seems likely quite opposite of your intentions. There are plenty of experienced mathematics editors working on that article, with many more monitoring it, including Oleg and Jitse, both administrators and PhDs in applied math/numerical analysis. There is no reason to escalate this any further. There are plenty of policies on Wikipedia to quote, but we would all like to go back and work on the mathematical content at the splendid former collaboration of the month, Integral. Cheers, Arcfrk 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(nod) I am only trying to help, but I will stop participating. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to thank KieferSkunk for his work towards resolving the dispute. To my view, his presence helped to calm the situation.

Arcfrk, I understand your frustration with the time taken up on the article talk page to address this situation, thought sometimes that's needed to get things back on track when interpersonal friction gets in the way of editing. I agree it's time to let this rest now so the article can continue its growth.

But I don't agree that KieferSkunk re-inflamed a resolved situation. His comments were helpful in getting the involved editors to at least recognize that treating each other more respectfully will result in a smoother collaboration over the long run.

There would have been no alert posted at WQA if Loom91 had not needed help with what he saw as uncivil comments, insults and other problems. And since that report, there has been improvement, a positive result from the work of KieferSkunk. He deserves to be acknowledged for his service.

I'm going to enter a short comment at WQA and close out the alert. If insults or accusations continue, any of the parties are welcome to contact me or KieferSkunk or open a new alert. Hopefully that will not be needed and the collaboration will proceed in a positive fashion. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to help out at Integral. Things are mostly under control now. Though KSmrq still seems a little heated up, rationality has mostly been restored. I disagree with arcfrk, you ARE helping out at Integral. Extra pairs of experienced eyes never harmed an article. KSmrq still seems mostly reluctant to discuss content. He insists that my edits are so disruptive that he does not consider his reversions worthy of explanations. Still, I'm sure we can work out something. I'm a longtime contributor to Wikipedia, and this flare-up at Integral was the worst one I've faced in a long time. My actions seemed to have a most unexpected effect on the editors, particularly KSmrq. I'm also looking for some advice. KSmrq continues to allege that I'm a regular disruptor of the encyclopedia. This is not the case, as you can verify by looking at my contributions and my RfA. Should I pursue this or just let it lie to stop diverting the discussion from the content? Again, thanks for your help and I request you to continue watching the article to keep the discussion focused. Loom91 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not sure what else to suggest. I've tried all I'm really able to do to facilitate discussion between you and the other editors, but I see that KSmrq has not participated (except to address me directly). So it's probably best to either let it lie, or pursue other forms of mediation, depending on how you feel about the state of things. Best of luck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you advice me on what went wrong? After spending a long time here, I thought that I had learned the art of avoiding such large scale flare-ups. I also had the impression that the community was satisfied my ability of dispute resolution, since most of the objections at my RfA were because of not having enough edits yet and asking me to reapply later. In this case however, apparently editors other than KSmrq were not satisfied (to put it very mildly) with my handling of affairs. Throughout the fiasco, I had attempted to maintain civility, continue discussion strictly focused on content and to cite sources to backup my stand. What then went wrong and how can I prevent this from happening in the future? I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion. My watchlist is getting rather cluttered, so I will be grateful if you reply at my talk page. Loom91 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. As you say, citing sources is the way to go. Over the years, I've developed references as my main tool in any dispute. Citing sources has usually solved heated disputes. In this case I filed a RfC because KSmrq continued to revert even after I gave a source. Even now no source has been given for that statement. Loom91 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I kept my head cool, did not yield to the temptation of reverting KSmrq's reversion of my edits and instead started a thread in the talk page raising two issues, one about the General properties section and one about the length of the numerical quadrature section. But now that the article is the way he likes it, KSmrq (or any other editor) has not bothered replying to either of my concerns, though KSmrq's edit summary for the reversion adviced me to raise the issue on the talk page befor editng. What is the correct course of action now? Loom91 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the result of your RfC? Did you get any outside help from there? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing significant. Loom91 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd probably take it up again there - ask for them to revisit it. If that fails, try requesting informal or formal mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making three changes I had proposed. Two of them, I had brought up for discussion and had got no replies. Another I had discussed and was more or less in line with the consensus. KSmrq, who did not bother to reply at the talk page throughout this time, immediately lept to revert me. His edit summary asked me not to edit without consensus, though he didn't mention how consensus is to be achieved without discussion. He also commented at the talk page, and this reply consisted entirely of attacks and disparaging remarks, without any attempt to discuss content specifically. KSmrq seems to take reverting my edits personally. Loom91 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to file for mediation, but Cornholm has posted at the Math WikiProject, so I'm waiting to see how this turns out, though I fail to see how one partial revert (the last I was going to make) counts as a revert war. I will like your opinion on the procedural issues in the talk page. I was hoping this particular beast was dead, but apparently not. In one of the reversions, a discussion with other editors was supporting my edit but KSmrq reverted anyway (that was the reversion I reverted once, hoping KSmrq had done it because he was batch-reverting all of my edits). Loom91 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked KSmrq to explain the current consensus to you and to participate in discussion with you. That's about all I can do at this point. Please keep in mind, however, that there are other editors there who also appear to disagree with your edits. Please read WP:CON thoroughly to understand the consensus process - I asked KSmrq to also be aware of that - and make sure that you abide by consensus if your attempts to change it fail.

I'm afraid there's not much more I can do to contribute to this situation. If you should have further disagreements that cannot be resolved through consensus discussion, I'd suggest going to mediation, RfC or, as a very last resort, arbitration. People in those areas are more qualified to handle this situation than I am. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I've been a contributor for a long time and I always abide by consensus. But how is consensus possible if there is no discussion? Anther editor made this very same point at WT:WPM. There were no replies, and therefore it was impossible for me to judge whether my edits were going to be opposed or not. Loom91 11:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had said before that KSmrq was reverting my edits simply because they were made by me. Now this has spilled on to other articles. Please take a look at Talk:Topos. Loom91 12:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loom, I am no longer involved in this dispute - I've given all the advice I can to both sides. Please request a User RfC or use another form of dispute resolution (formal mediation would be my next recommendation). I can't help you anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for all the help. I will like to note that I was not talking about the dispute at Integral. I've taken a break from that. But I suspect that KSmrq has taken the dispute personally and is opposing all my edits. I was asking you to take a look at Talk:Topos to see if there is any ground for further action. Loom91 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to nominate something that's been in AFD before? I would like to have List of video game collector and limited editions back in AFD, but I've had problems nominating articles that have been in AFD in the past. I've read the instructions and all that, but it still never works right for me. RobJ1981 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't nominated articles for deletion before, so I'm afraid I can't really help much. Sorry. :/ Is the problem technical, as in the information doesn't get entered in the right place or something? Or is it that nobody responds or you have difficulty getting your points across? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great job on the broader description there, I hope you don't mind that I've used the same description to the PS2, PS3 and Wii only categories? --Stef Nighthawk 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great to me. :) Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like most of what you've done, although I don't think it was that bad before, but there are a few points I would like to discuss.

• You added the statement "then pulled ahead to dominate the market well into the 32-bit era"; I suspect someone will interpret this as claiming the SNES dominated the PlayStation, which we have no source to support. The original meaning was that the SNES simply remained successful well into the era.
• I think the short "golden age of video games" comment should go back in. We have references for both pro and con, we have a userbox used by 300+ users, and we're not giving it undue weight. The PlayStation brought a change in the nature of video games: rumors are that Sony forbade 2D games, in some opinions even at the expense of gameplay and plot.[1]

BTW, don't forget that <ref>s go after punctuation with no intervening space. Someone changed WP:FOOT, this used to be the official guideline. Anomie 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I mainly just wanted to de-sensationalize the section. Regarding the market dominance: I see how my wording can be misconstrued - should probably read more like "...then pulled ahead to dominate the market for the remainder of the 16-bit era. The SNES remained popular well into the next generation of consoles." Would that work? I didn't mean to imply that the SNES dominated next-gens like the Playstation. :)

I can see how the "Golden Age" portion would be useful, but I pulled it mainly because we'd have to include a similar paragraph in the Mega Drive and TG-16 articles as well, and because the paragraph as written didn't pertain to the SNES (it was very general and, at most, would be more appropriate at the beginning of the section). If we can rewrite the paragraph to show how the SNES embodied the Golden Age, then I'd be happy with putting it back in. It's certainly true that most fans of that era of gaming think of the SNES and Genesis as iconic and representative of the era. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, although I think something like "and later pulled ahead to dominate the 16 -bit market and remain popular well into the 32-bit era." flows a little nicer. I know you didn't intend to imply domination of the PlayStation, but I well recall how some UK Mega Drive fan desperately wanted a statement in the lead that the MD was way more popular in Europe based on his personal experience. If the first PlayStation fan who saw that statement was of the same type, who knows what he would add to try to fix it.

If someone wants to add a golden-age statement to Mega Drive and TurboGrafx-16, I would not object. OTOH, I feel no need to go trying to add it myself, and they should probably find a better source than one that only discusses Nintendo platforms ;) But don't write a whole paragraph, that would be undue weight without more prominent sources. The single sentence that was there previously (change "SNES era" to "16-bit era" if you prefer) is plenty to make the point. Anomie 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the version that's there now? Is it too much? In this case, I reworded it to talk specifically to how the SNES embodied the golden age, not so much to talk about the golden age itself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still struggling with that market share sentence. I think the first clause has gotten too wordy and needs to be cut back. You also lost the "in the U.S.", which is all our source supports; in Japan, the MD was never really competitive (Kent p. 447), while rumor has it that the SNES never caught up in Europe. How does this sound: "Market share was about even in the U.S. by April 1992;^[1] the Super NES later pulled ahead to lead the 16-bit market, and remained popular well into the 32-bit generation.^[2]"

I think the golden age paragraph is too much, but otherwise it's great. Maybe trim it back and use it as a summation at the end of the previous paragraph, something like this?

... ending with the release of Metal Slader Glory Director's Cut on December 1, 2000.^[3] Some consider the SNES to embody the "Golden Age of video games", citing its many groundbreaking games and the perceived focus on gameplay over graphics and technical gimmicks.^[4] Others question this romanticism, believing the system was just another step in the evolution of video game technology.^[5]

In recent years, many SNES titles have been ported to the Game Boy Advance, which has similar video capabilities. In 2005, Nintendo announced that SNES titles would be made available for download via the Wii's Virtual Console service.^[6]

Anomie 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those look great. Go for it. I went ahead and incorporated your suggestions into the article. How's it look now? :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Looks good to me! ;) BTW, do you have an opinion on the reordering of the sections Madcoverboy suggested? Anomie 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked at the suggestions in depth yet. I don't really have a strong opinion there, though - I'd like to avoid overstructuring the article, but if it's just reordering info, I'm sure we could come up with a good order for everything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance, will you give the rest of the article a similar once-over? I don't think the remaining sections have the same issue with sensationalism, but User:Epbr123 claims the rest of it needs "copyediting" of a more general sort. Anomie 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, as time allows. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, more copyediting! (: As usual, though, there are a few items I would like to discuss.

• The logic behind "The Super Nintendo Entertainment System or Super NES, also known as SNESTemplate:Hcref or Super Nintendo," was that "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super NES" are both official names for the console used by Nintendo, while "SNES" is an abbreviation of convenience and "Super Nintendo" is a nickname.
• The historical information (market share, etc) and the technical aspects IMO should be separate paragraphs, with the historical paragraph first and the technical second to match the article structure. Also, WP:LEAD recommends this article to have a 3-paragraph lead section. Maybe something like this?

  The Super Nintendo Entertainment System is Nintendo's second home console, following the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). The SNES was a global success, although it could not match its predecessor's dominance in North America, due in part to increased competition from Sega's Genesis console. Despite a late start, it became the best-selling console of the 16-bit era and remained popular well into the 32-bit era.

  The system contains a relatively slow CPU compared to other consoles in its generation, but its advanced graphics and sound capabilities and numerous enhancement chips kept the console competitive. Even though Nintendo has officially ceased all support for the console, the SNES continues to be popular among fans, collectors, and emulation enthusiasts, many of whom are still making "homebrew" ROM images.

  • The parenthetical "(such as the Super FX chip)" IMO is unnecessary in the lead.
  • Note that in Japan, SNES games continued to be made until 2000, consoles continued to be made until 2003, and the Nintendo Power download service was only discontinued this past February (probably because they want the Virtual Console to replace it).

Anomie 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. :) Here's a point-by-point reply:

• • I didn't realize "Super NES" was an official title - I always thought it was just another abbreviation. Should be easy to reword that.
  • The reason I put the technical info before the market share was because I felt it would flow better: The first paragraph describes the console's releases, the second paragraph describes the console itself, and the third loosely describes its reception. To me, the console's great reception was due in part to its technical capabilities (particularly its expandability through the game cartridges), so it seemed logical to make the technical description lead into the reception section. Because there were only two sentences in each of the latter paragraphs, it seemed to make sense to put them together. We can separate them again if that would fit the MoS better, though. I've gone ahead and split them out into separate paragraphs again, and expanded the second one a bit so that it wasn't just two sentences long.
  • I included a mention of the Super FX chip because it's the best-known enhancement chip for the system, and by mentioning it there, I felt it would be self-explanatory enough to avoid having to add wording for "enhancement chips in the game cartridges".
  • Perhaps we should drop the date for Nintendo dropping support for the system, and just mention that they did so.

I've made some more significant changes to the overall article structure in the hopes that it'll solidify the content and make it flow better. Lemme know what you think. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" is so long, they had to abbreviate it some how. They chose "Super NES" as the official abbreviation. Probably because they wanted to keep the "Super" rather than just adding a single letter to "NES". I would personally use commas instead of instead of parentheses, but otherwise that looks good. The lead does flow better the way you have it, even though it doesn't match the article structure; let's leave it your way, and see if anyone on the FAC page mentions it.

• "and these features help to compensate for the system's relatively slow CPU, compared to other consoles in its generation." could be more concisely stated as "which compensate for the system's relatively slow CPU compared to competing 16-bit consoles."
• Regarding dashes: there are two styles for using a dash to set off a phrase. One style uses an em-dash (—) with no spaces, while the other uses an en-dash (–) with spaces around it. Don't use an em-dash with spaces, that's just too wide.
• The phrasing on the first sentences of the third paragraph sounds odd to me. How about something like "The SNES was a global success, although it could not match its predecessor's dominance in North America, due in part to increased competition from Sega's Genesis console. Despite a late start, it became the best-selling console of the 16-bit era and remained popular well into the 32-bit era."? My first sentence there could be improved, but I think this grouping of ideas sounds better.
• I really don't like the former "Notable titles" sections being added to History; if you want to combine the sections, the whole combination needs a complete rewrite to flow better: mainly, the whole thing should to be in roughly chronological order, and new subsections have to be created for most of the info currently in History.
• I like the edits to Launch titles, but note that F-Zero shows off Mode 7 as well.
• I like the edits to The end of exclusive licensing too.
• Under Mortal Kombat, keep the link to Nintendo Policies#Censorship; that explains the details of the policies more in depth than we should go into here. Also, the policy didn't really cause Nintendo trouble, it just resulted in the Genesis's bloody version selling better. I like everything after "A surprise hit in arcades", just the opening needs work IMO. Oh, except the word "later" in the last sentence, that's redundant ;)
• You weakened the language in Donkey Kong Country quite a bit, but the original version is supported by Kent p.496-497:

  Nintendo had the biggest game of the year.... [T]he 500,000 copies of Donkey Kong Country that Nintendo sent out in its initial shipment were mostly sold in preorder, and the rest sold out in less than one week....

  While analysts criticize Nintendo for trying to milk its existing technology, the 16-bit machine, even as others were leapfrogging that technology by moving to 32-bit machines with a CD-ROM drive, the bestselling item in the industry this Chirstmas was Donkey Kong Country, a game written for that supposedly outmoded 16-bit platform. In the last 45 days of 1994, Nintendo's new game sold 6.1 million units, making it the fastest-selling game in the 20-year history of the video game industry and clearly a hotter item than Sega's new Sonic & Knuckles title. Visually, the game is at least as impressive as those played on 32-bit machines

  ... It established the Super NES as the beter 16-bit console and paved the way for Nintendo to win the waning years of the 16-bit generation. More important, Donkey Kong Country sounded the death knell for Jaguar and 3DO by convincing customers that the first systems in the next generation of game consoles had little to offer that could not be found on the Super NES. Donkey Kong Country may not have destroyed the competition, but it certainly cleared the way for the more impressive competitors that were about to arrive.

  (The book then goes on to discuss the Saturn and PlayStation; I mentioned only the PlayStation as the Saturn went on to become a footnote in console history).
• Instead of "games that were being released", just say "games released". Anomie 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat: Link to Nintendo policy page added, wording changed per your suggestions. Hopefully that'll help.

Donkey Kong Country: This was another example of what looked like sensationalized text to me. IMO, the wording is just as strong as before - you can still get that the game was wildly successful and competitive with 32-bit systems from that. I'm not sure how it's been weakened in my version.

Notable Titles: So, AFAIK, the sections are already in chronological order, and they all pertain to significant points in Nintendo's history. To be honest, I'm not sure that "End of exclusive Licensing" and "Mortal Kombat" really belong in this article at all - neither of them pertain to the SNES itself, but rather to Nintendo's main history. Mortal Kombat was certainly nothing groundbreaking for the SNES hardware - certainly not like Pilotwings or Star Fox were - it just represented a shift in thinking across the entire gaming industry, and the SNES is implicated only because of Nintendo's policy decisions. In the meantime, the Launch Titles and DKC are certainly noteworthy mentions for the console's own history, but I think that having a separate section devoted to "Notable Games" not only puts undue weight on the games themselves, but it opens the door for crufty material (something that was partially addressed by an invisicomment). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SNES success: The main reason I worded it the way I did was to put more emphasis on how successful the SNES was globally, and THEN bring special attention to the competition in the US. The other form seemed to mix the two together so that neither one seemed particularly important. ("It was really successful, but not that successful in the US. But it was successful enough..." vs. ("It was really successful, enough so to ... however, it wasn't as successful in the US because...") We want to try to avoid confusing the reader - separate individual thoughts into their own phrases to make sure the reader is clear about what they're reading. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro: I like it! Your latest revision flows wonderfully. Edit: the 17:16 version IMO is better

Ordering: The notable titles are in chronological order, but the History section as a whole is not. First, it goes through the general history from beginning to end, and then jumps back to the beginning again to discuss the launch titles. To keep them merged, the first 4 paragraphs need to become a subsection on their own (what's a good title?), then insert "Launch titles" and "The end of exclusive licensing", then expand the 5th paragraph into a section "Console wars", followed by or combined with the MK section. The DKC section could be combined with the 6th paragraph as a paragraph on continued popularity in the 32-bit era, and finally turn the last 2 paragraphs into a final subsection. At this point, though, someone will probably suggest WP:SUMMARY.

MK: "to no longer enforce its censorship policies on third-party titles" sounds awkward, but the rest is great. The reason MK is in there is because it lead to the end of Nintendo's censorship policies, lead to congressional hearings (in which a point was made of the SNES's censored version), and brought about the whole ESRB rating system.

DKC: You changed "proved" to "sought to prove", and removed the "paved the way" comment; since the justification for including DKC in the article at all is that it revived public perception of the SNES and proved that more was needed than just the same old 16-bit games to carry the new 32-bit platforms, that weakens the whole section. Please work your magic on that "paved the way" comment, especially since I quoted the source so you know exactly what can be supported.

• BTW, change "that had been created" to "rendered". Active voice and more concise ;) Anomie 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro: Not sure I understand your response here.

Ordering: I see your point there, but I disagree: The main History section describes the console's overall history as a single unit, and then the subsections discuss specific points related to the console's history as separate but related subjects. I don't think MoS has any requirement on chronological flow in cases like this - the idea here was to separate the history of the console itself from historical moments peripherally related to the console - I think it would be inappropriate to mix the two. Plus, we would have either an overstructured or understructured History section if we tried to arrange everything in chronological order, and that would likely get the section marked as overly long in either case.

I see what you were getting at now. I moved the Donkey Kong Country and Launch Titles portions into the main history - it makes more sense now that I look at it this way. I left the "exclusive licensing" and "Mortal Kombat" sections as subsections for now, pending what we decide for those sections. I still think they're not really meant for the SNES article, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK: I'm not sure how to improve upon the "censorship enforcement" sentence, but I'll crunch on it some more. As for the inclusion: Despite how the SNES censoring affected the sales of the game, I still think that's a more appropriate subject for Nintendo itself, rather than for the SNES. That could just as easily have been the N64 or the GameBoy this occurred with - the situation very likely would have been the same. The Mortal Kombat debacle was a milestone in video game history in general, but it's not really a SNES-specific issue.

DKC: I changed the overall flow of the paragraph to address what Nintendo and Rare wanted to accomplish by releasing DKC. Despite the citation, I think that saying they "proved" the SNES's staying power is a bit too much to bite off in the beginning of the section - I addressed the message they sent with DKC in the end of that section. I also removed the "paved the way" comment because it read as though Nintendo was responsible for the Playstation coming to power, which it really wasn't. DKC didn't knock out the other 32-bit systems - it just helped the SNES stay around longer. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look to you? That's what I was talking about for the history section, I hope you like it. Anomie 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That can work. I'd suggest renaming "Into the 32-bit era" to "The 32-bit era and beyond" to indicate that the section covers more than just 32-bit consoles. Otherwise, that looks good. :) And I can see how it helps to integrate the exclusivity and MK stuff - I stand corrected on how it presents the History section. Nice job! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anomie 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Specifications: I'd move the "casing" and "lockout" sections down to the bottom of this section. The Lockout section specifically should go down to the bottom near the Cartridge section, since there's a photo of the physical cartridge differences there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I could go either way on this one. If you're going to change the order like that, I might rearrange everything: CPU, Video, Audio, Onboard RAM, Lockout, Casing, Game cartridge. Anomie 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to do it, or should I? Anomie 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it. :) I'm a bit busier now than I was the last couple of days. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anomie 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was I thinking there? Good catch.

I think the wording should be good in the Techincal section, I'm better at technical writing than historical ;) Peripherals could probably use some work, and I revised Enhancement chips in a bit of a hurry so I would not be surprised at stupid mistakes there. What do you think? Anomie 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I looked at it, the technical section looked all right, though I think it may not be necessary to list all the different graphics modes that the SNES offers. We should describe Mode 7, as it was one of the main selling points for the SNES. But you hardly ever hear about the other modes, so I don't think it's necessary to go into exhaustive detail on them. Otherwise, I think the article looks pretty good. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Mode 7 is actually Wikipedia:Notable and has its own article, the other modes are still relevant to the technical aspects of the console. In particular, someone who wanted to know just what the SNES could do graphically would find the list useful, particularly in that it illustrates the tradeoffs between many layers and many colors. If you compare to the information in Mega Drive, it also allows you to accurately contrast the video capabilities of the two systems.

Besides which, it's not "exhaustive" detail; exhaustive detail would include Mode 0's unusual use of the palettes, Mode 1's variation that changes the priority of the 4-color layer that makes for easy score displays and dialog boxes, the differences in layer priority levels between Modes 0-1 and 2-6, the details of how the offset-per-tile mode cannot scroll the first tile and how it's actually 8x1 instead of 8x8 tiles, how Mode 4's offset-per-tile mode differs from Mode 2 and 6's, the details of Mode 5 and 6's altered tile decoding, the fact that Mode 7 stores both graphics and tilemaps in a different format than 0-6, and the hardware limitations that result in the tradeoff between more layers and more colors. ;) Anomie 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more technical detail than the article really needs, though. Most of the mode descriptions read just like one another, so wouldn't it be better to just condense the list into one or two sentences? Like: "The SNES graphic processor features seven eight main modes for displaying and manipulating graphics in memory. These modes vary in screen resolution, use of object tiling and palette manipulation, H-DMA effects, etc. One mode in particular, Mode 7, performs large-scale bitmap stretching and rotation to create a 'floor' in pseudo-3D games, such as racing and flying games." Something like that. We have other resources we can refer people to if they want to know more about the technical details of each mode. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't provide any information besides "The SNES has lots of video modes, one of which is Mode 7", and the resources we have are too technical for someone who just wants to compare what the SNES is capable of graphically with the capabilities of other consoles. What is there now is at just the right level of detail: capabilities of each mode without extra detail. Leaving out this information would require rewriting the entire rest of the section to match the press-release level of detail (it would be unbalanced to keep detail about everything except the video modes), and that would not be comprehensive coverage of the technical aspects of the system. The descriptions read similarly on purpose, because the same information is required to describe each mode. Anomie 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for working so hard to forge consensus and encourage friendly editing at Integral. Both sides of the conflict appreciate your noble efforts and positive attitude.Cronholm144 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) And you're welcome! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very well deserved barnstar, congrats Kiefer, regards sbandrews (t) 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations! And thanks for your help with this and various other issues at WQA. Your efforts and (as Cronholm144 put it) your positive attitude, is much appreciated. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with Wikipedia? Oh, right, self-promotion. JAF1970 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAF, two things: First, this is my User page and my User Talk page. I am certainly allowed and entitled to do whatever "self-promotion" I want here - this is a place where such is appropriate. I wouldn't criticize you for promoting yourself on your user page, so please don't do it to me. Second, Cronholm placed this Barnstar on my Talk page - I didn't put it here myself. So, may I ask what the problem is? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing things up. I'm very passionate about GORF and its history and got a little carried away when I noticed that comment about editing in the talk page.

As you can tell I'm new to editing posts and adding comments. I hope to register in the future and contribute to WP.

Thanks again. :)

207.71.0.35 20:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Glad to help. You should register! It's free, it's easy and fast, and you'll be able to take credit for your involvement - especially in consensus discussions. Sign up and lemme know - I want to be the first to officially welcome you to Wikipedia. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attacks_by_user_Fyslee. Most editors take a look a these Barrett-related disputes and find something else to do instead. It's nice to see someone take the time and do a good job of diffusing the situation. Thanks. --Ronz 20:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. :) Thank you! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		This barnstar is hereby presented to KieferSkunk in appreciation for his peacekeeping efforts. "Blessed be the peacemakers, for they make Wikipedia worth inheriting." -- Fyslee/talk 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(feel free to place this on your user page! - Fyslee

Thanks. I initially did it because I'd posted one and figured I should probably contribute to a couple as well, and because I felt guilty about being a rapid article creator/expander without giving back with many of the less sexy tasks that keep Wikipedia going, but I had fun - I think I'll stick around that page. I'd always appreciate pointers, though. Sarcasticidealist 01:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had the same experience myself - see my WQA on User:JAF1970 toward the top of the page. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, don't forget to de-tag once the rationale is added :) Sfan00 IMG 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My follow-up to yesterday (my, my, you appear to be keen on censoring your local record). But anyway ... enjoy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Politico-media_complex#Folded_responses_to_KieferSkunk

Dsmith1usa 12:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dsmith, I've said several times that you're going about this all wrong, but you seem to want to persist in continuing a personal dispute in that article Talk page. There is nothing more I can do in this situation - I will be referring you and Steve Block to a higher form of dispute resolution at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Correct wikilink: Talk:Politico-media complex#Folded responses to KieferSkunk) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, DSmith: Please do not change my signature on other Talk subjects. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what guidelines does it contradict? I can't seem to find anything, mind passing a link please?74.116.111.137 02:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVG/GL - check out the Scope of Information section. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any interest in a nomination for adminship? Andre (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I'd love that. :) Though I feel I should ask: What's your reasoning? And also, do you think this is a good time to nominate me, considering my recent dispute with JAF1970? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I noticed you've been doing good work, have over 2000 edits, and have lately been accumulating a lot of praise and even barnstars. I'm not suggesting that there aren't others deserving of adminship in and around the project, though. I think you're right that the JAF dispute was a bit recent, so we can wait a few months. Keep up the good work meanwhile. Andre (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(nod) Understood. And thanks again. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write:

... but it appears that you are not willing to mediate.

Since you have positioned me as a disputante, how can I mediate, dear KieferSkunk?

There was no deliberate intent to mess-up anything. On posting back your talk space, with the attitude of having some manners to notify you about what I had posted. Manners, I will hasten to add could be used by others when they try to lean on me as a 'case history' to support their self-promulgation (search for Dsmith1usa on that page) for adminship. I was mildly surprized to see my earlier 'good manners' notification had done a dissappearing act without some remnant of reasoning as to why it had been removed. My own attitude is that talk page trails are extremely important and all mods. and their reasons should be easily accessible (and I don't mean the Wiki 'History' trail).

I have no vendettas. Life is too short. Wiki doesn't 'possess' me like it seems some others. You talk of 'good faith.' Again, I would encourage you to read the 'entree' as you might say to my acquaintance with other editor(s) that you have positioned as disputante(s) and my immediate attitude of 'good faith'.

Of course, my attitude of 'good faith' is undermined when the 'equestrians' start to engage in real flights of fantasy.

You write:

Dsmith, I've said several times that you're going about this all wrong, but you seem to want to persist in continuing a personal dispute in that article Talk page.

Well, I would be, wouldn't I (going about it all wrong, that is). Par for the course.

I have no interest in having disputes with anyone. I don't care what folks do with goats. I do care about truth and justice.

But if there's some major restructuring that an editor wants to do - I'm not talking the odd change of word here or there - when there is a lot of material in the article - regardless of any perceived 'Wiki objectivity' shortcomings - then a good way of avoiding conflict is for the proposer to make a article talk page entry before such changes. Especially when an originator has earlier expressed a desire to cooperate.

You threaten:

There is nothing more I can do in this situation - I will be referring you and Steve Block to a higher form of dispute resolution at this point.

Well what can I say ... refer away (there, I've done it again - that mooste be the after effects of late night Chaucer;-) ... I'll take it for granted that you've informed Block, too, of your intentions?

In closing:

... it shows that there is nothing more I personally can do to help out with the situation.

I suspect you do mean well, KS.

Good luck, be well ... Dsmith1usa 09:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dsmith. If you are not interested in disputing things in the article, then why are you continuing to call out Steve block in the article talk page in the manner you have? There are plenty of ways to discuss article content without attacking the other editor. You said:

Well, as you saw fit to edit Block ... it's back to your original now (all your work) ... well, we're back again. // It's like Groundhog Day innit my dear Block?

This is phrased as a personal attack against "Block". This is highly critical of Block's editing methods, and it appears to assume bad faith. It does not even address what you think is wrong with the article - just that you disagree with his version. If you're genuinely interested in improving your criticism, try something like this:

I see that the article has gone back to its previous form. I disagree with X and Y (call out specific diffs if you want). Here's what I think should be there instead: Z. etc.

This keeps the discussion neutral, free of personal references and attacks, and it allows for real discussion about the content. What's there on the page right now, though, is a bunch of personal diatribes against "Block" and very little actual content discussion. THAT is why I have criticized and warned you about WP:NPA. And I said that you appeared not to be interested in mediation because, even after trying to facilitate discussion between you two, inviting you to participate in WP:WQA, etc., you continued to post the same sorts of inflammatory comments in the article talk page. You also called me out in the same talk page in writing a very lengthy response, which I personally felt was inappropriate to have there. I would not have taken issue with the content of your response had it been on either my or your Talk page, but such a discussion does not belong in an article talk.

Hope this helps clarify my position. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually very familiar with parser code, but I'll see if I can figure out what's going on with that. Andre (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and expanded the usage a bit to allow this template to cover more cases. Unfortunately, it means more parsercode. :/ — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patrick helped me out and showed me the correct code to add, as well as how to modify the template call. It's working perfectly now. :) Thanks for looking into it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you almost have it working, but if you omit title or system it doesn't subst correctly. I made a copy at User:Anomie/furvg that seems to work, if you want to take a look. Anomie 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I made a couple minor tweaks and then ported your fixes back to my version. I think we've got it! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed {{{page}}} back to {{{1}}}. The problem is there's a bug in MediaWiki that will screw up the value of {{{1}}} in this sort of code: {{{{{subst|}}}#ifeq:{{{title|z}}}|{{{title|u}}}|{{{title}}}|{{{1}}}}}, which seems to be necessary to get it to work properly with the subst... Anomie 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Huh, it works now. Ok, good then! Anomie 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Dark Samus looks like her suit is alive isn't the same as stating it as a fact. And you have to admit, she does have a somewhat organic appearance... HalfShadow 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. It's still original research, it's unsourced, it's based on personal observation, and it's a subjective/POV statement that other readers may not agree with. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A real problem, it seems, with the Wikipedia 'equestrian.'

KieferSkunk asserts what should have been there:

I see that the article has gone back to its previous form. I disagree with X and Y (call out specific diffs if you want). Here's what I think should be there instead: Z. etc.

Oh, Gggwwaawwdd ... how can put me 'passive' when I was 'active?' Your attempt at 'mediation' - as I try to offer at you consolation, in your, apparent, good intentions, is comediac.

KieferSkunk, please refrain from your laissez-faire of the use of the letter 'I.' This, of course, is an an attempt to name "I" ... note my careful use of the double quote.

KieferSkunk, as you can see, for those that are paying attention, is telling me and you what I/we was/were supposed to have said. (This is like the grief, friends, that we had to get through on - in the face of 'good intentions' of Wiki editors - Engel's article on her stance on the war on Iraq.)

It's what our 'equestrians' and our Dear Leaders assert is 'obvious' (at the meta-level) and the 'fun' in 'NK' right now:

I'm out -- refer me whatever you want to do with me, bother other people in your 'good intentions' -- just don't waste anymore of your keystrokes on me.

Hope this helps clarify my position 'n have a nice life.

Dsmith1usa 10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes welle, the soone doo'n dette...

Suit yourself. Rest assured, I won't be the only person who sees your statements toward Steve block as personal attacks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I move User:KieferSkunk/furvg to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video Game Images/rationale ? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-5 14:23

That's an awfully long link name, unfortunately. Is it acceptable to have a main-level redirect to it, like just "vgrationale" -> the link you posted? I'd be honored to have the furvg template copied or moved to the main namespace - I just want it to be easy to use. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I moved it to {{vgrationale}}. Better? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-5 20:43

That's awesome. :) Thanks! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that sentence on WP:CVG, I kind of messed up doing that change :) Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 00:49

		The VG Barnstar
		Also, for creating that FU template and for your contribution to the WP:CVG project in general, here's a barnstar :) JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 00:54

Thank you! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... if you think he comment on the AFD was rude you should check out my talk page. Also, he was told about the wikiquette alert---but chose to delete it. As he has several other conflicts' he's had with various people!Balloonman 02:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(nod) I saw that. However, I chose to keep the warning to just one diff for now, as I'm an uninvolved third party. If it becomes necessary to escalate further, I/we can reference the attack on your Talk page as well. In any event, those kinds of comments on his part are completely out of line, regardless of the context. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I appreciate the input. I was going to let the issue drop (as my note on the WQA stated) and then he made at least two other personal attacks. Again, thanks for the note.Balloonman 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer, if you want to get a mild chuckle, you should check out Southern Texas' talk page and then mine...Balloonman 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I may not log in for a while. Please email me if you need diffs or views, or if I need to account for my actions. You can try posting on my talk first, or at WS. I hope this can be resolved amicably, thanks for addressing the issue I have raised. I want to avoid any further disruption and make this advantageous for all concerned, I have nothing against the editors. Fred ☻ 19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]