Talk:List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Here we are again

Some editor named Herostratus has just arbitrarily closed the RfC section, and given his arbitrary summary, declaring victory in favour of the deletionists. It is my stance that he has done this against consensus, which we had established here after a very long time. I do not recognize whatever authority he purports to have in this matter, and thus I have restored the external links, bringing us back to exactly where we were before this whole fiasco started. Congratulations, wikipedia, on proving yourself ultimately worthless. Shakzor (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you, ya know, actually read what he wrote? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus, as an impartial user elected to close the rfc after the allotted time had long passed, which is what is supposed to happen, and gave an extremely detailed explanation as to why he made the decision he did. You are clearly only protesting because he disagreed with you, had he gone the other way you would have had no problem "recognising his authority". Just drop it and stop wasting all our time--Jac16888^Talk 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus sacrificed whatever claim he might have to impartiality when he did two things: -Ignored consensus in his decision making process. "The headcount was, depending on how one counts standing (and counting all commentors in the whole history of the talk page, not just the RfC sections), about 10-7 in favor of including the links. This is close enough that I didn't consider it very important." -Included his need to chastise myself and others in his decision making process. "Based on the behavior of the the people who commented, I would think it fair to say that the Wikipedia would be justified in actively discouraging such people coming to the Wikipedia, or at any rate certainly not catering to them." I do not see any right given him to disregard a majority consensus. It is also shameful that he would use "actively discouraging such people coming to wikipedia" as a valid reason to adjust content in an article. Shakzor (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that consensus isn't a vote. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shakzor: How long will you continue reverting changes to this article? After reading Herostratus's summary and ruling, which must've taken tens of hours to compile, I've accepted that this article will eventually become useless to me and won't be referencing it anymore (to me being the crux here — I only use this article to watch the videos, and how you-collective use it is inconsequential to me [no offense]). There are plenty of other ways to access the AVGN videos, via James's own page, searching on gametrailers.com, or even buying the DVDs. You need to cut your losses and accept that it's taken months of time and numerous escalations and deferrals to authority to come to a decision that benefits the users less than it does the policy-makers. In spite of claims to the contrary, Wikipedia is in fact a bureaucracy — importantly, one that does not tend toward your views. Just leave it alone. Bclennox (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it certainly gets run like one. This entire site is a cornucopia of policy and guideline; and populated by people with far more free time than myself, who fancy themselves learned elders of humanity, and wish nothing other than to engage the rest of the wikipedia community in an unending debate over every iota of detail. I have lowered myself to your collective level, and engaged in discussion here for far too long, much to my own personal shame; it has solved nothing. It is I who feels his time is being wasted by others, but I should really try to not care so much, as this whole endless argument is something the rest of you have fashioned for yourselves; I should leave you to it. Also, Bclennox, I have already outlined the conditions by which I will leave well enough alone, above in the discussion, which you apparently have neither read nor participated in. Shakzor (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I put a lot of thought into closing the RfC. It was a hard call and I gave it my best shot, and I didn't know how it would go myself until I had gathered the material and cogitated on it for some time. I'm not an involved user and don't know or care anything about the content of the article and am not involved with any of the main editors thereof. I volunteered to perform the close at after seeing a request for close in a random sweep of the admin's noticeboard. I'm not an admin but I am an experienced closer and have closed hundreds of XfD's and a few RfC's as well with, I think, reasonable satisfaction. I used WP:CLOSE as a guideline. RfC's are generally considered to run for a month and are legitimately subject to close after that time, especially if dialoge has died down or moved on, as is true here.

That being said, none of this any guarantee that I was "right". But it does create a current status quo. As far as I know, there is no written procedure for appealing an RfC close, as there is via deletion review for XfD's. However, that doesn't mean there can't be an appeal. I just don't know how it would be done. Three ways I can think of are:

1. Appeal to the closer (me). I have taken appeals from XfD's that I have closed in the past and changed my mind. If there's a potentionaly decisive factor that I overlooked, that would be an important point.
2. You could appeal at WP:AIN for an adminstrator(s) to review the close and determine if it was legitimate and proper and reasonable.
3. I suppose you could run an RfC on the close to get input on whether the close was legitimate and proper and reasonable.

But absent a successful appeal, please don't overturn the result of the close or edit war over this. I put a lot of effort into this and I would ask people who don't agree with the close to at least respect that. Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Request denied. Shakzor (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So basically, you're going to go against the normal WP process no matter what. You do realize that's considered disruptive right? Not to mention you seem to be a single-purpose account and have been blocked for edit warring on this page before. So... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we stop feeding Shakzor. CTJF83 20:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not here to provide amusement or enjoyment - this is exactly why I will never donate money to Wikipedia. It is a sad day when sites like TV Tropes provide more interesting information than Wikipedia (to me, at least). Shakzor, it pains me to say it, but I believe we've lost. Ultimately, the deltionists have more time and can parrot policy better than us, and disruptive editing will only serve to get yourself blocked. I only hope that in the future the policy will change, the deltionists will come to their senses and we can restore this page to its former glory. I only have one question for the deletionists: why did you make your very first edit? Was it to delete content in articles and rigorously enforce policy, or was it to contribute to a wonderful website and make the page more useful to other readers? Just something to think about. 60.226.65.51 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (formerly 60.226.67.88 - my IP has changed for some reason)

Ok, time to stop beating the dead horse and get off the soapbox and move on, seriously. CTJF83 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So I guess for you it was to delete content in articles and rigorously enforce policy? Thanks for clearing that up. And I was actually trying to calm Shakzor down and all, and just thought I'd give you something to think about. How silly of me to think that you'd think! 60.226.65.51 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I checked this page so I could find a specific episode to show a friend just to find all the links gone. I wondered why this page had been rendered worthless, so I did something I never do and checked the discussion page to see some fuckers arguing the links should be deleted because of some Wikipedia policy (fucking hilarious). Way to go! Wikipedia drama FTW! Well let me ask a question. What the fuck is the point of having an article about something when you can't even cite the primary source for all the information in the article? Wikipedia is already laughable as a credible source for anything but when mods go around deleting THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION because its against policy, seriously, what the fuck? Fuck you guys. You clearly don't understand the concept of encyclopedic information when you won't even allow primary sources for articles to be used.98.67.193.47 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)A Wikipedia user since 2005

Calling us "fuckers" is a great way to get what you want. CTJF83 21:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

• External Links do not the body of the article. Wikipediea is not a collection of external links and external links should not normally be used in the body of an article. It is not a directory to help you find individual episodes. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Even though I am bias in favor of the show, he is correct on the Wikipedia policy. The links need to be removed in addition to cleaning up the notes field. -DevinCook (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I love AVGN and agree with both of you. I was going through one time and removing everything after the first time an episode "aired", but got bored and stopped. So if someone wants to remove all the ELs from the body, go for it. CTJF83 chat 14:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I find the deletionist moronacy here as always foolish and anti-information. The links were useful. I routine used them to view. This article is a god damned LIST of episodes. It is quote common and USEFUL to have links like this. This is the primary reason I will never donate to this site is foolishness like this. I again find this to be an aggressive quest against knowledge to apply bureaucratic rules to suppress useful information. Wikipedia is at this point more of a political expression of activist editors than the a repo of information. The sad thing is most of the activists could NEVER, EVER get a job as an editor. mickrussom (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Ultimately, the guidelines set down in Wikipedia are designed for it to be a useful resource to begin research. The page must be encyclopedic - in that sense it needs to relay information. Information about episodes are encyclopedic. The episodes themselves, are not. Besides the obvious fan-dome direction Wiki would take without these rules, it makes the articles "fragile" insomuch external links can never be considered 100% stable. While I do appreciate the useful links... and I use them... Wikipedia is not intended for that.-DevinCook (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is list is a list of episodes of content available. There are countless examples of this being done elsewhere. What this is is a deletionist activist policy of bureaucratic troll destroying information to lick the boots of hyper-policy driven administrators to try and earn things like Barn-stars. This is exactly what the bureaucrats that worked for the Nazi regime were like. Please STOP DESTROYING TRUTHFUL INFORMATION HERE. The beauty of cyberspace is there is no reason to artificially limit the size and scope of things like traditional media encyclopedia. This website is becoming infested with frustration information destroyers. I was just enjoying watching AVGN episodes and returned on CHRISTMAS EVE to find some drooling psychopath pulling a Grinch and deleting useful links to funny material. mickrussom (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Please see my diatribe above. I'm not arguing against the article. Also, its refreshing to see Godwin's law make an appearance. Its been a while, at least for me! :) -DevinCook (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
    • AS a guest, I must say: STOP DELETING THOSE USEFULL LINKS. And I don't want to be offensive, but **** everyone who wants to delete those links. To hell with the deletionist policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.53.79 (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm responding here per the 3PO request made at WP:EAR: Wikipedia is not a collection of links. At this point, the latter two (User:Mickrussom and IP editor editing from 109.61.53.79) are soapboxing and on top of that, purposefully disrupting Wikipedia and the process to make a point by edit-warring. There are times when it is necessary to ignore all rules, and then there are times when it is necessary to use common sense when applying that policy. This is one of those times when the policy is there for a reason. This is not a link repository for persons to use as a directory listing for viewing the videos. While linking to YouTube can be a valid reference in some instances, this is not one of them. Furthermore, keep the uncivil personal attacks out of it please as it highly disdainful to accuse someone of/compare their actions to being a Nazi without basis. All that said, as a point of note in the future for User:Duffbeerforme, please word your request for Editor assistance carefully next time as it honestly looked like you were canvassing. Now then, I have restored the page to the last revision by "duffbeerforme" (Revision as of 21:46, 24 December 2010) not because it was he who posted it, but because that revision reflects Wikipedia policies as they are set forth. Continued edit-warring should be reported to the ANI. I'll also put in a temporary protection request till the dispute is resolved. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 06:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

• Could someone please remove the external links from the body of this article to comply with wikipedia policies of not a collection of external links and external links should not normally be used in the body of an article and is not a directory to help find individual episodes, see above discussion (easily done by undoing this edit). duffbeerforme (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry to be lazy but I don't have time to do this. It would help an admin considerably if you do this on the draft version that I have created at Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/draft. Alternatively the links could be converted to footnotes, if they are deemed useful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done (using this version). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what the fans' problem with removing the ELs is. They are all there in the history, and as far as Wikipedia policies go, the history of the article stays forever. Which means that the links and fancruft stay forever, too. Example. -Shadurak —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC).
• You guys are just diminishing the usefulness and general worth of the episodes page by deleting these links. Nobody but you cares about the "PHILOSOPHY" as it applies to Angry Video Game Nerd episodes, y'all, and all you've done is made this page not worth visiting. Great work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.108.236 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Guys, we just have to accept it. If someone wants to make a page on Wikipedia less useful because Wikipedia has a policy written down, so be it. It's not like we can change the content on Wikip- oh. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations for removing the only useful purpose that this list served. 130.89.101.28 (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As this consensus is still forming, and the edit war is continuing, I've protected for a week. A request for comment may be helpful here. GedUK  07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll throw in my 2 cents (saw this linked from WP:ANI). It's clear to me that a single link from each episode to the episode doesn't violate policy. To quote: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." I don't see these links in any way dwarfing the article itself or detracting from the purpose. If we had legal youtube episodes for "Friends" you can be sure we'd be linking to them from the list also. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Come on Wikipedia, this is ridiculous. These links were useful and I used them frequently. Can someone explain me in which way the removal of the links improve the general quality of the article ? What exactly do we gain by removing these links ? Use some common sense. Timst44 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps a compromise can be in order? Let's face it - yes, the individual links were handy, but it's not like going to Cinemassacre.com didn't also give you the same information? Perhaps just a link informing readers that these episodes are available there would suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.210.164 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...there's one there at the bottom of the article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeal

I am just stating my intention to formally appeal this decision. I am way to busy to do this within the next couple days, but I want my intention to be clear. In the meantime Shakzor, please adhere to the decision. With much respect, and having been (and continuing to be) an ally of yours on the substance of this issue, your attitude was not a positive contribution to this debate (even if the substance of what you said was). Behavior was relied upon in part (and I will contend, too much reliance was placed on this) when determining the merits of this.

Also in the meantime, I do not purport to be an expert with Wiki procedure, is there someone (on either side of this debate) who can point me to (1) the location to lodge an appeal and (2) the standard of review when appealing such a decision, (3) the standard of review (if any) when challenging the competence of an editor to close this kind of debate.Anber (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read up a few lines. Herostratus has identified the avenues you may proceed to appeal this decision. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't really tell me much. I see there is a link, but I am not sure how exactly to institute the appeal at the link. Putting that issue aside, nobody has answered my question as to the standard of review for this kind of appeal. Anber (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mikon8er's appeal Will somebody help me restore the external links to the Angry Video Game Nerd videos on ScrewAttack, YT, and Gametrailers? These people really seem to be abusing their power, and using 3RR to their own advantage. Those trolls instigating edit wars will be the death of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon8er (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

TAKE NOTICE THAT I am appealing the decision of Herostratus, maded on the 13th of March where he closed the RfC determining that the existing status quo of external links should be removed. By the present post, I am outlining the grounds for appeal with more detailed submissions to be made in the near future.

The grounds on which I believe that Herostratus was in error was:

1. Herostratus erred by misapprehending facts before him. Two examples of this are with respect to his headcount of the number of people in favour and opposed and secondly, his determination that certain users had displayed civility issues was not accurate in all cases.

2. Herostratus erred in taking into consideration the behavior of posters in favour of the status quo when determining the strenth of their argument.

3. Herostratus erred in finding that there is not a strong policy proscroption of the links, but then goes on to overemphasize the policy against the links.

4. The closer of an RfC must be an uninvolved editor. In rendering his decision, Herstratus erred in making new arguments that supported his position. This should have disqualified him from closing this debate.

5. Herostratus erred in finding that there was some scholarly basis in keeping the links, but in giving insufficient weight to this finding.

6. The concept of status quo was a live issue and would have governed who had the onus to prove their case. Herostratus erred by not addressing these issues.

7. Such further and other grounds as may be argued.

Anber (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing of the RfC

I do not care about what Herostratus wasted several hours of his life just to write. I believe making these long and lengthy tables is an utter waste of time and is just pure stupidity. So therefor, I will continue to restore the links until Hell freezes over. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, until you're blocked anyway. And restoring the RFD template along with it is even more dumb. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a shit. I'll just make a new account, as I've had enough with being patient with all you fucking brain damaged idiots who spend hours writing extremely long posts. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for their personal attacks and edit warring on the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who was a major proponent for keeping the links and as someone who still believes the outcome of this debate was wrongly decided, I must come out and say to my colleagues: stop edit warring, people! The decision was made. It was wrongly made, but it was made. Until the proper channels are pursued, it is disruptive to just revert the links back. If we had come out on the 'winning' side, we would have expected the deletionists to have respected the outcome. Anber (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Stay Pending Appeal

I have now formally indicated my grounds for appeal, with written argument to follow shortly.

In most kinds of appeals there is an option to "stay" (suspend) the result of a decision pending the outcome on appeal. Factors to consider are whether or not the appeal grounds are frivolous, if the decision reversed the status quo and whether or not the decision can finally be executed if the Appeal is dismissed.

In the present case the appeal is not frivolous; in fact, one of the grounds of appeal even goes to the competence of this editor to have been able to have closed the debate since he is prima facia biased (he contributed new arguments). Secondly, there is no reason to believe that following the appeal, if it were not successful, that the links can be reverted back. Thirdly, as indicated this decision overrules the existing status quo. Fourthly, there was overwhelming support in numbers and so, pending a ruling on this appeal, there is a popular basis for retaining the status quo.

On this basis, I am asking if there is consensus for us to Stay Herostratus' decision until the earlier of the following two dates (i) a determination on appeal, or (ii) a sunset date of June 19, 2011. Anber (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhh...I know you're a lawyer and all, but this is Wikipedia, not a court case. I suggest a post to WP:ANI and ask them what to do if you disagree with a RfC closure. And I seriously don't want to drag this out another 3 months, and sure most people agree with me. CTJF83 03:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just cuz he's a lawyer doesn't make the point less valid. There's a reason why decisions are held off on until an appeal is heard. In this case I side with Abner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.223.28 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

An IP with no edits....hmmmm....

A contentious court case, perhaps, but not here, to treat Wikipedia as a court house is ridiculous. CTJF83 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since your position is it's not such a huge deal as to be treated as a court case then I therefore take your comments as supportive of us reverting the links back until a truly impartial editor, who considers all the issues properly reviews this on appeal. Thanks. Anber (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Uhh...how did u come to that conclusion? How is Herostratus, not impartial? CTJF83 18:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't be hypocritical - either you agree that this is a debatable issue and you encourage it to be debated. Or, if you think it shouldn't be treated like some court case then agree to the stay while the issue is appealed. With the greatest respect, I am tired of hearing you speak out of both sides of your mouth during this debate. I have pointed it out on several occasions and you have not done anything about it. With respect to Herostratus, if you read my grounds of appeal, you'd see, that the closer needs to be an uninvolved editor. By contributing his own arguments, as he admits that he has done, he lost the capcity as an uninvolved editor. Anber (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI or WP:ARB. CTJF83 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Episode 102

Is the real episode 102 "the making of the..."? This episode its not counted as a episode en the Oficial AVGN list in Screwattack or Cinemassacre section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.20.43.231 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it should at least go with "related videos" 27.33.182.89 (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy?

James has released the official season splits are. Shouldn't it be counted like this? (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. For example, James considers episode 101 (Spielberg games) to be part of season 6, not season 5. This should be fixed since it is his series afterall and he decides when the seasons start and end. 67.253.250.154 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Season 11 info

It says on the list that season 11 was to start on March 20, 2017 with the episode, "Charlie's Angels." However, I can't find any Season 11 episode. I checked for about 2 days since the supposed released date. Plus, there was neither evidence of the nerd planning to review Charlie's Angels nor evidence of the season primiere date anywhere on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:68AD:160:ED94:BB98:2619:F47 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215052627/http://www.screwattack.com/news/angry-video-game-nerd-dvd-volume-7-and-board-james-dvd to http://www.screwattack.com/news/angry-video-game-nerd-dvd-volume-7-and-board-james-dvd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725123156/http://startrek-games.com/startrekgames/index.php/Star_Trek%3A_The_Motion_Picture to http://startrek-games.com/startrekgames/index.php/Star_Trek%3A_The_Motion_Picture
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925205844/http://www.screwattack.com/shows/originals/screwattack-top-10s/best-and-worst-gaming-peripherals to http://www.screwattack.com/shows/originals/screwattack-top-10s/best-and-worst-gaming-peripherals
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924070548/http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/angry-video-game-nerd to http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/angry-video-game-nerd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)