User talk:Manifestation

Deze gebruiker heeft het Nederlands als moedertaal.

This user can contribute with an advanced level of English.

This user has a standard time zone of UTC+01, but he uses UTC+02 from March to October.

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave me a message.

Note: before messaging me, you may want to check my edits to see if I have been active recently. If you want my help, but I'm not around, and you're unsure where else to ask, The Teahouse may be a good place to go. You can also look at the Questions page.

Archives:

Note[edit]

This page was last archived on 27 June 2023. To see archived posts, see the links above. - Manifestation (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revdeletion needed[edit]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

A vandal put someone's phone number in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pok%C3%A9mon&curid=8570634&diff=1164404579&oldid=1163071171

Can someone revdelete it? Thanks! -- Manifestation (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PhilKnight (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! :-) Manifestation (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of WP:INVESTOPEDIA over at RSP[edit]

Hello Manifestation - I just read through the most recent discussion on the reliability of Investopedia, which you started a few months ago, and I'm not sure you assessed the consensus rightly. By my reading of the discussion, it seems most people believed it's a Level 2/Yellow/"No Consensus" source.

I counted 7 editors whose opinions seemed to align with Yellow-level, with some strong arguments from yourself, PaulT2022, and Mx. Granger; and 4 editors who seemed to align with Red-level/"Generally unreliable", with the strongest argument coming from DFlhb. Even aside from the vote count, I noticed 2 problems in the end:

Your last attempt to close the discussion garnered responses from ONLY "Red-level" supporters
It seems like the criteria for judging sources was misapplied. The general feel I got from the discussion was that Investopedia was generally okay, but with potentially large and numerous gaps and inaccuracies; also, that it's always preferred to find a better secondary source, but NOT to the point of preferring not to use Investopedia at all. These criteria align better with the "yellow" level than the "red" level, as they're described at WP:RSP.

All that to say - I personally think Investopedia should be listed as a "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" source (similar to other tertiary sources, like WP:BRITANNICA). The discussion you led got a good amount of attention, and it was the best attempt in a long while at getting a label on this source. But I'd hate to have that label continue to influence future assessments of this source, since I think that discussion went in a different way.

Do you think it's worth bringing up again at WP:RSN? I'd propose a yellow-level designation with text, briefly mention my assessment of the previous discussion as justification, and probably ping all the editors that previously contributed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PhotogenicScientist. Thank you for your message.

I think your best bet would be to start a Request for Comment, which several sources have received over the years, but not Investopedia.

I don't believe I assessed the consensus wrongly. If anything, I misassessed my own judgement. Looking back at it now, my arguments weren't very strong.

I'd still argue that Investopedia could be useful. The main problem is that it's tertiary. In other words, it's a source that uses info from other sources. So you might as well cite *those* sources. On top of that, there are accuracy concerns, notwithstanding the fact that the site has a review board and appears to welcome corrections (see here, search for "Corrections"). Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poke Sources[edit]

I don' know if you are aware but I am here to inform you that your site have encountered some internal server errors. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miraheze is a great free and ad-free wiki-hosting service which I have been using in the past to host my various projects of interests although I was overwhelmed by the loneliness and stresses of creating these articles. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers - Fixed. Thank you, and thanks for advising Miraheze. I'll check it out. - Manifestation (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the Pokémon article[edit]

After much trimming, I believed I have refined my additions to reflect only the most essential development history details discussing how the games have evolved over the years and established connections between them to show how they indirectly contributed to the development of Pokemon as a whole. I hope you don't believe otherwise. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. See here. - Manifestation (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ape, Inc.[edit]

I am here to inform you that I have removed the sentence "Ape, Inc. is not credited on the final product." from the History section because I am unable to find a reliable source for it. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also "Over the next three years, GF developed four more games: Magical Tarurūto-kun (1992), Mario & Wario (1993), Nontan to Issho: KuruKuru Puzzle, and Pulseman (both 1994)." I don't see how it contributes to anything, and I am also unable to source this. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers: Does absolutely everything needs to be sourced? Can't the product(s) itself be the source?

I believe the phrase "Ape, Inc. is not credited on the final product" is important. To the best of my knowledge, it is currently not publicly known what Ape did on Pokemon, if anything. Maybe they did nothing. But it is also possible that Ape, Inc. was a so-called ghost developer for Pokemon. Ghost development has a long history in Japan, going back to the 1980s (see here: Video game development#Ghost development). Game Freak's first game, Quinty, was also partly created by an unidentified ghost developer.

I found only two quotes by Tajiri-san regarding Ape's role. I was unable to establish to what extent they were involved. What I do know is that, over the years, people have noticed a number of similarities between Pokemon and EarthBound, such as Mewtwo resembling Giygas. See here, here, and here for more information.

My best bet is that Ape handed them some things along the way, especially at the very beginning in 1990. At that point, Ape had already developed one RPG: Mother. Game Freak had never developed an RPG, so it makes sense that Ape would help them out. On the other hand, Pokemon initially started out as a much smaller, compact game, made on a small budget. So maybe Ape's assistance was in fact quite limited... or did not even happen?

Bottom line is: we don't know. The only thing we know is that Ape is not credited on the final product. That we know for sure. This statement does not need to be sourced. It can be hard to prove a negative, but if you look at the box, the cartridge, the title screen, and the credits, you won't see the name "APE" appear anywhere.

- Manifestation (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwatchers: As for the part about the other titles Game Freak developed: I agree that it can go. I just deleted that part. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitext table sorting[edit]

I noticed that you recently sorted the Wikitext of List of burial places of classical musicians by name. Which tool did you use? Or did you do it manually? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After that, I copy-pasted all lines in Excel, in the second column, one cell per line. In the first column, I used a formula to extract the Last Name from the second column. Then I sorted everything, copy-pasted it all back into Notepad++, did the replacing backwards, and presto!!

To be honest: it did took me a few attempts. Maybe there's an easier way to do it, but I couldn't find anything on google or Mediawiki.org. - Manifestation (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation. I've tried my hand at wikitable manipulation some time ago using Excel and Windows Script, but only for cases where a whole table row was in one line. Parsing a multiline wikitable row for sorting or other manipulation is beyond me. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and in a perfect world, this would be a functionality within the Visual Editor. But it likely would be used only seldomly, which is why it was not implemented I guess. I also tried some of the off-site table editors listed here, but none could sort. - Manifestation (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Manifestation/Wikiarchaeologist[edit]

Hey Manifestation :) I recently created Category:Wikiarchaeologist Wikipedians, and I was wondering if you'd mind if I edited this userbox to include the new user category. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 03:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! Go ahead. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've done that. I've also added the userbox page itself to Category:Wikimedia-related user templates - I hope that's okay, but feel free to revert if not. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of mental disorders in the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR

added a link pointing to Identity problem

List of mental disorders in the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR (alphabetical)

added a link pointing to Pica

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Manifestation (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pokémon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Niantic and Detective Pikachu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Manifestation (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verywell[edit]

Boy, WP:MEDRS really gets treated like the boogeyman around here, huh? Seems like nobody wants to engage with questions of it at all. There's been 4 other whitelist requests made and answered in the 5 days since I made mine. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotogenicScientist: You seem to have hit a similar wall to the one I hit four years ago. The people who don't like Verywell, or any blacklisted site, will stonewall the discussion, or simply not react at all. Other people don't care, so the issue remains deadlocked.

For one, the spam lists should be renamed, because it contains more than just spam sites.

As for Verywell... I guess we could fill an RfC. But I honestly think it's absurd that it would take an RfC to correct something this simple. - Manifestation (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or simply not react at all seems to be the main problem. I'm trying to wait 2 days in between requests for movement, since I get this is a volunteer project, and people are busy, and/or simply don't care.

But COME ON - it shouldn't take 5+ days to get approval to drop a good citation into an article. That's prohibitively long to be of any use. I'm going to see how the whitelist request plays out before thinking of what to do next. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotogenicScientist: Beetstra and JzG (I won't link them because I don't want to attract their attention) have ignored you for now, but if you become 'difficult', they will use all tricks in the book to frustrate you and keep Verywell off this site. I know, because it happened to me.

If Verywell is banlisted because it's popular press, then all popular press should be banlisted, and every single url should be manually approved by an admin. Such 'red tape' would go against Wikipedia's culture, and is obviously a very bad idea.

A while ago, I rewrote the article Pokémon from scratch. In doing so, I had to use a few questionable sources, including one by the Daily Mail, a source that is deprecated on Wikipedia, but not on the blacklist. I was also forced to cite a self-published essay. Just four days ago, I could finally replace said essay with a better source I found: an NPR audio fragment I had obtained (and uploaded). I like Wikipedia because it gives me a lot of freedom. If I had to gain official approval for every dubious link I wish to use, I would go nuts!

So yes, I sympathize with you. You did well on the Myolysis page. Good article! It sucks that you've now hit this bureaucratic hurdle... and for what? 😔 - Manifestation (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]