User talk:Nifboy

Homestar Runner

Hi there User:Nifboy:Nifboy, I noticed you added information about the puppet stuff to the Homestar Runner article. You may or may not be aware of the Homestar Runner wiki (http://hrwiki.org) which has a lot of detailed information and transcripts (such as its own resources on the Hrwiki:Puppet Stuff). Because there are so many links and pages about homestar runner there, I've been trying to figure out exactly what the relevant things to put on Wikipedia are. It's tough because Wikipedia won't allow advertising for non-wikimedia partners, so a lot of fans will notice how much could be put into the articles. Maybe you have an opinion to contribute to the Talk:Homestar Runner? Anyway, just soliciting some opinions from people who have edited the article lately... Metaeducation 15:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as advertizing if the site is a valuable and relatively reliable source of information. I mean, National Geographic isn't a Wikimedia partner, but nobody would quibble over whether or not that would be a good link to include (if there were one from National Geographic, I mean). Runa27 01:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics

Hi, Can you give a valid reason why you and your friends from Comixpedia continue to edit out an example of a 3d webcomic? That comic happens to be a 3d comic and I noticed there were no examples in the article. I added it as an example of a 3d webcomic. I would hate to think you are all claiming ownership over an article in Wikipedia which is open to edits and improvements. I might feel the need to consider reporting your over edits as abuse of wikipedia.org User:141.155.205.74 05:41, November 7, 2005

Because it reads like an advertisement (or vanity), the comic in question has no article, just a link directly to the comic, and the webcomic article doesn't have examples of clip art, pixel art, or photographed webcomics, despite there being more notable examples that already have articles. And, really, you ought to be posting this on the article's talk page. Nifboy 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for helping revert it. I am still new to Wiki and I did not expect to start off an edit war. I hope you realize that I do not mean any offense with any edits although sometimes people taking edits or changes personally can occur... --Kainee 05:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your webcomics VfD thought. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:50, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

R&D1?

Shouldn't Nintendo Research & Development 1 be merged with Intelligent Systems? They are the same group, right? And were they still known as R&D1 when they created Metroid: Zero Mission? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 21:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not the same thing, and have not been the same thing for two decades. Intelligent Systems was a team that split off from R&D1 in 1986. R&D1 was still a dev team for Nintendo up until this year, when it was merged with EAD. Nifboy 02:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The info on IGN confirms this. The Intelligent Systems article needs to be corrected, then, because it states that IS is simply a different name for R&D1. I'll try to fix it and expand the IS article a bit. I'll look for any other Nintendo games that are misattributed to Intelligent Systems. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ocarina of Time

This URL below hold many of the Legend of Zelda comics and manga-novelizations of the games, which were translated.

http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=manga

afd helper

I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman ^talk 03:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about you on my talk page

Hi Nifboy, I thought you should know that there's a bit of discussion about one of your reverts over on my talk page: User_talk:Dragonfiend#Repeated_editing_of_Webcomics (Also: I appreciate all the work I've seen you doing on various webcomics articles!) Dragonfiend 02:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, I see you got one, too. Dragonfiend 02:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the thought, though. Nifboy 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This gave me a much-needed laugh, things have gotten all to serious of late. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God, This whole thing has had "INTARWEB DRAMA" pasted all over it since then. I usually keep my snarky comments to myself but I hit post on that one before I could reconsider. Nifboy 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB

Hey mate,
You were a little brutal with the archiving. In particular, you took out several people's opinions on syndication. If you'll look over last time I did it, I provided some summarised blurbs on what had gone before. If you don't feel like doing this (because it's a pain in the arse, I know) let me know and I'll do it again. Otherwise we end up saying a lot of the same things over again.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience has been that we say a lot of the same things over again anyway. Although I do confess the archiving wasn't "brutal" so much as it was "lazy trimming," i.e. simply cutting out all but the most recent discussions. I'll see what I can do. Nifboy 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Work on List of webcomics

Yeah, I had no idea, either. I kept following lists and categories and they just poured out of the woodwork. A lot of them were marginal, sure, but there were several significant comics as well. I think we've got most of them, now, but who knows how many are out there that have no cats, aren't stubbed, aren't linked to, aren't on any lists, and aren't wikified at all. In a million articles, they might as well have slipped into a black hole. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think of Wikipedia as a black hole of information. Nine times out of ten you see only what you want to, the other 10% is Random Page. Nifboy 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the fact that 400 articles at Comixpedia are marked as Wikipedia imports, I know what that means. That 400 people decided not to bother with keeping the article here, and decided to put it on Comixpedia's Wiki instead. That's four hundred lost articles (and probably writers), right there! If Wikipedia were a company, that would equal 400 (now 401) lost customers. Seeing as there are only about six thousand webcomics out there, that's about a 7% loss. Take away the less active comics out of that 6,000, and it's more like a 30% loss- something most companies can't afford. I'm not just saying this out of the imminent loss of my comic's article at Wikipedia (which is ALSO a Comixpedia article that is an import), but for the dozens that have been deleted over the past several weeks and months.--Videowizard2006 02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: It has come to my attention that close to 500 articles at Comixpedia are marked, and not all of the comics listed there were deleted from here. But I'm still sure a lot of them are. Enough to still be a loss that most companies can't afford. I want to propose a new Webcomic Standard to end all this fighting and deletionist activity. As WCs are often difficult to verify, I've reduced somewhat the importance of verification. If the info comes from a webcomic site (even those hosted by free companies) that has been along long enough (six months), and can be verified by viewing the site, then that should qualify. If it comes from a forum, it must contain at least 20 posts from users other than the author. That's all for verification! --Videowizard2006 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Back in my box now. Eventually, at some far distant point in the future when robots rule the earth people realise that David Letterman isn't funny anymore, I'll have fully gotten my temper in check. Thank you.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that sometimes we're blind to our own weaknesses, and I trust your judgment. I therefor give you carte blanche to strike through or remove outright any comments of mine that you think are out of line on the Project page. I suggest this because if you see something and kill it before it gets responded to, it might help to avoid any further cycle of nastyness. I'll still do my best to be nice, of course.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

categorizing cvg characters by last name?

Zero wanted a concensus on that. Your input would be appreciated.--Dangerous-Boy 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Studios (Mark Healey) and Mark Healey

Hi there! As one of those work works on deadend pages and knows about computer/video games I wonder if you could look at these two articles? The first is currently a deadend on PROD and second is a proposed Merge. Some expert cleanup would be appreciated! Thanks Cje 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaster Master 2

Hey, yeah..umm, what exactly did you mean by "Fixing cat" on your last edit of this article? Where did I go wrong?

Sega Exodus

Hey, just wanted to know your opinion on my last page I submitted on the Sega Exodus...whether you felt it was okay, or needed imporvement, or whatever.

PS - Do you think it would be okay to add in links to ROM images to certain games for Sega, etc.? Is it allowed?

Glad to see you're supporting the webcomics medium

Just a note about the webcomic I added to the list before your edit - I was just on my way writing an article about it, maybe I should have done that first before adding it to the list. Still, it's good to know that someone is looking out for the page, editing it mere seconds after I uploaded it (no, I'm not "offended", I'm actually glad).

You seem to be supporting the medium here on wikipedia, which I think is really important - I'm new here but I hope to do something similar with other "elements of popular culture" that people seem to avoid mentioning because of their supposed lack of artistic merit... I just edited the video games article for example to include the recent BAFTA official announcement that made the whole British gaming community proud...

Still, it's great to see that there's others here that do the same. That's the point of wikis after all, they're beyond "cultural snobbery" and reflect the views of the actual users who care enough about the articles.

Kudos from me at least.

UserFriendly

Just an FYI: Illiad does, with rare and obvious exceptions, draw each and every strip. Since I know him personally, I know that he's an honourable guy and doesn't pull the crap that you inaccurately accuse him of. In fact, I've heard him deride other artists who do this.

So, perhaps before making these false accusations, you should know of what you speak. --Kickstart70·Talk 04:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My complete apologies...I, of course, retract what I said. The anonymous user is the idiot. Sorry...blame it on me being tired and not paying attention. --Kickstart70·Talk 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE#Embedded_HTML_links

I wasn't saying no references at all should be ok, I was referring to the fact that many articles have inline external links which are actually acceptable according to the link you gave me. Since there is no standard for references and footnotes even in FA land my question was designed to figure out whether good articles should be specifying the references format more specifically. As it is specified at the minute external references would be acceptable. They do allow a reader to perform independent fact checking even if the format is not perfect. The GA criteria should spell out clearly what is acceptable and what is not. Cheers SeanMack 06:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, and agree with yourself and the editor who removed the 2 articles before I added the References sections. I've actually put the template {{unreferenced}} into pages before rather than nominate them. My overall point though is that I think we could be a bit more explicit and helpful to editors in what exactly is expected for this criterion. The CITE page isn't the easiest chunk of information to digest. The most important outcome is that the facts of an article can be easily verified, and if there is a simple task list for people, my hope is that these things can be taken care of quickly, so that reviewers can spend more time checking the quality of articles rather than having to get the boilerplate correct. Cheers SeanMack 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, do you think this article, Suikinkutsu should be marked as good, given the state of it's citing references? I have a feeling we may need to weed out some of the good articles already in the list... Cheers SeanMack 11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop

Hi, I've nominated the workshop for the WP:GCOTW. Hopefully we can get some input from the Wikiproject and finally get this thing going. jacoplane 14:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tool-assistance improvement drive

Hi Nifboy. Since you're a Wikipedian and also a member of Bisqwit's site, I'd like to direct your attention to the tool-assisted speedrun article, which I would like to do an improvement drive for this weekend. I'll personally be editing it heavily to try to bring it up to the status of good article, but I'll need the help of good editors who know a lot about the phenomenon. It would be great if you could help out! The talk page contains some information that you could get started with. In case you're up for some editing, see you there! —Michiel Sikma, 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good Articles

Sorry, I didn't re-read the Good Article page recently. I've been waiting for someone to make a references page before I relisted the page as a good article, but completely forgot that the pictures need references, too. Got a little ahead of myself, my apoligies. Sonic3KMaster 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPIT

I noticed that you brought up a discussion on the WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy. I suggest that you join it, I think it would be nice to have more people aboard. Icelandic Hurricane #12 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X

Thanks a lot for your Peer Review feedback. It'll be taken into account in the next edits. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you don't mind, could you give the page another look? I've taken all your suggestions into account (except for dropping the gameplay sub-headers, though I might still do that or something similar). Thanks for the suggestions. Ryu Kaze 00:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

I am sorry that I nominated Super Smash Bros. to be a good article. What I meant to do was nominate Super Smash Bros. Melee, but I am on dial-up from this location and was pissed at the speed... Alvin6226 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X360 vandalism

Thanks for catching that last bit, removing past vandalism gets tricky after a few legitimate edits. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 10:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my redirects. Maurreen 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction article

Hi! Remember me, I requested a Peer Review for Fan fiction? Well, I've made some tweaks to the organizational structure (though not much to the writing itself, though somebody else may have in the interim). What do you think? Improved a bit, at least as far as organization goes? Runa27 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U=T3h kI2@z0rz

You reverted SSBM so fas7.71.225.139.105 21:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for nominating all those VAs for WP:V0.5N, to give us some things to get our teeth into! If there are others like yourself, we might get several thousand articles on this CD! Thanks Walkerma 04:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzball

I noticed you moved some stuff to a gaming wiki. There is a lot more blitzball content t Wikibooks, hich will be deleted soon. We have been moving it to FF Wiki but you are more than welcome to get it fo the gaming wiki you mentioned Renmiri 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]